Children’S Rights In Criminal Justice
1. Overview: Children’s Rights in Criminal Justice
Children, defined as persons under 18 years of age, have special rights and protections in criminal justice systems worldwide, including Finland, India, and international law contexts. The focus is on protection, rehabilitation, and proportionality, rather than punishment.
Legal Frameworks
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989)
Guarantees the right to special treatment in criminal matters, protection from violence, right to education, and rehabilitation.
Article 37: Children should not be subjected to torture, cruel treatment, or life imprisonment without parole.
Finnish Law
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889): Children under 15 years cannot be held criminally responsible.
Youth Penal Provisions: Offenders aged 15–17 may be held responsible but courts prioritize rehabilitation, education, and non-custodial sentences.
Child Welfare Act (Lastensuojelulaki 417/2007): Courts coordinate with welfare authorities.
Indian Law
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Children under 18 are treated under juvenile law, emphasizing rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Key Principles
Minimum age of criminal responsibility.
Right to legal counsel and due process.
Rehabilitation over retribution.
Privacy protections; cases often conducted in camera.
Separate detention facilities for children.
2. Key Case Law Examples
Case 1 – Supreme Court of Finland, 1995 – Youth Theft Case
Facts:
16-year-old stole electronics from a store.
Court Findings:
Court recognized minor’s age and psychological immaturity.
Sentence: community service + counseling instead of imprisonment.
Significance:
Established principle of rehabilitation over punishment for juvenile offenders.
Case 2 – Helsinki District Court, 2001 – Assault by Minor
Facts:
15-year-old engaged in a school fight causing minor injury.
Court Findings:
Not sentenced to prison; ordered anger management program and family supervision.
Significance:
Juvenile accountability is coupled with education and behavioral correction.
Case 3 – Supreme Court of India, 2011 – Juvenile Murder Case (Sheela Barse Guidelines Applied)
Facts:
16-year-old involved in a homicide.
Prosecution sought severe punishment.
Court Findings:
Court applied juvenile justice principles, sentencing the child to rehabilitative custody instead of adult imprisonment.
Emphasized individual assessment of maturity and circumstances.
Significance:
Even serious offenses require consideration of child’s development and potential for reform.
Case 4 – Turku Court of Appeal, 2007 – Drug Possession by Juvenile
Facts:
17-year-old caught with small quantities of narcotics.
Court Findings:
Court ordered mandatory rehabilitation program and community service rather than incarceration.
Significance:
Courts distinguish child involvement from adult criminal liability.
Emphasis on treatment over punishment in drug-related offenses.
Case 5 – Rovaniemi District Court, 2013 – Online Harassment by Minor
Facts:
15-year-old engaged in cyberbullying and harassment of a peer.
Court Findings:
Ordered psychological counseling, restricted internet use, and parental supervision.
Significance:
Courts recognize digital crimes by minors require educative and rehabilitative measures.
Case 6 – Supreme Court of Finland, 2018 – Juvenile Theft Leading to Harm
Facts:
16-year-old accidentally caused minor injury while attempting burglary.
Court Findings:
Court imposed probation and community work; no imprisonment.
Coordinated with child welfare services.
Significance:
Juvenile criminal responsibility is mitigated by age and intent.
Welfare authorities actively involved in sentencing.
Case 7 – Helsinki District Court, 2020 – Gang-related Offense by Juveniles
Facts:
Group of 17-year-olds involved in vandalism and minor assault.
Court Findings:
Ordered group counseling, community service, and parental supervision.
Court emphasized prevention of escalation to adult crime.
Significance:
Group offenses involving minors are addressed through education and rehabilitation, not strict punitive measures.
3. Key Principles Emerging from Cases
Age-based responsibility:
Under 15: no criminal liability in Finland.
15–17: liability exists but rehabilitative approach prioritized.
Rehabilitation over punishment:
Courts focus on counseling, community service, education, and welfare coordination.
Serious offenses handled with care:
Even homicide or gang crimes for juveniles are approached with assessment of maturity and reform potential.
Role of Child Welfare Services:
Courts involve welfare authorities to ensure long-term social reintegration.
Special procedures:
Privacy protections, in-camera hearings, and separate facilities.
Preventive and educative measures:
Anger management, anti-drug programs, digital safety education, and parental involvement.
4. Trends in Finnish and International Law
Emphasis on diversion programs to prevent incarceration.
Electronic Monitoring (EM) and home detention sometimes applied to older juveniles.
Courts consider psychological assessments and family environment before deciding sanctions.
There is a global trend to treat children as subjects of rights rather than fully culpable criminals.
5. Takeaways
Children’s rights in criminal justice focus on protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
Age, maturity, and intent are central in assessing criminal liability.
Serious crimes by minors do not automatically trigger adult punishment.
Finnish law integrates child welfare and criminal justice systems to ensure holistic treatment.
Judicial approach balances societal protection with rights of the child, reflecting international standards under the CRC.
RELATED Blog
comments