Time to end excuses for juvenile offenders

A recent survey found that 81 percent of respondents support lowering the upper age limit for juveniles exempt from criminal punishment, currently set at ages 10 to 13, according to a Gallup Korea poll conducted March 10 to 12. Under the current system, these offenders are not subject to criminal penalties even if they commit crimes. The results point to a strong public view that even younger offenders should face stricter consequences. Public sentiment toward such juveniles appears to have reached a critical point, shaped in part by outrage over brutal cases such as the group assault involving middle school girls in Busan.

Statistics from the past five years show a steady increase in overall offenses within this group, including serious crimes such as six murders and 50 robberies. Sexual offenses alone exceed 3,000 cases. Public anger has intensified as some offenders, despite committing grave crimes, mock victims and authorities by invoking their protected status. The Latin maxim “Malitia supplet aetatem,” or that malice compensates for age, has been widely cited in arguing that criminal intent should not be excused simply because of youth.

At the same time, a more balanced debate requires correcting the perception that these juveniles bear no responsibility. While they cannot be sentenced to prison terms or fines, they are not beyond sanction. Unlike children under age 10, who cannot be formally charged, they can be subject to court-ordered protective measures. The most severe of these, commitment to a juvenile facility, restricts personal liberty in ways comparable to incarceration.

Lowering the age threshold to 12 would not automatically mean that all 13-year-old offenders face criminal punishment. Older minors, classified as juvenile delinquents between ages 14 and 18, may receive either criminal penalties or protective measures depending on the offense. Only about 1 percent receive custodial sentences. Given that roughly 10,000 13-year-olds fell into the protected category last year, lowering the threshold would likely result in only about 100 receiving prison terms annually. This suggests that the perceived impact of tougher punishment may be limited. Critics argue that it is therefore questionable to instill fear of a criminal record in all 13-year-olds.

Public attitudes toward the issue remain deeply divided. Debate over adjusting the age threshold has continued since the mid-2000s, yet no consensus has emerged. A simple choice between lowering or maintaining the current limit may make agreement elusive. A more productive approach would be to explore a range of alternatives. One option under discussion is to lower the age threshold selectively for serious crimes, thereby expanding the scope of punishment.

At present, even when juveniles in this category commit grave offenses such as murder or sexual assault, they can be confined to a juvenile facility for a maximum of two years. Critics argue this is insufficient both as punishment and as a means of rehabilitation, and call for allowing courts to impose longer periods of detention when warranted. Related bills have already been introduced in the National Assembly and deserve careful consideration. Another proposal is to maintain the current age threshold while significantly extending the maximum period of detention in juvenile facilities. About a month has passed since President Lee Jae-myung instructed his Cabinet on Feb. 24 to reach a conclusion within two months. With limited time remaining, a carefully calibrated and thoughtful solution is needed.