Comparative Juvenile Justice Across Asia

18 Dec 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Overview of Juvenile Justice in Asia

Juvenile justice systems in Asia generally focus on:

Rehabilitation over punishment – Most countries prioritize reform and reintegration rather than harsh penalties.

Specialized courts – Juvenile or family courts often handle cases differently from adult courts.

Age of criminal responsibility – Varies across countries, usually 12–16 years.

Sentencing – Emphasis on probation, community service, counseling, or juvenile detention rather than imprisonment.

2. Comparative Analysis with Case Law

A. Japan

Legal Framework: Juvenile Act (1948), Juvenile Court Law.

Age of Criminal Responsibility: 14 years.

Principle: Rehabilitation is prioritized; minor offenders are often placed in juvenile training schools or under probation.

Case 1: Osaka Juvenile Murder Case (2012)
Facts: A 15-year-old committed murder during a robbery.
Proceedings: Tried in a juvenile court instead of adult court. The court focused on rehabilitation potential and psychological assessment.
Outcome: Detention in a juvenile training school until the age of 20, with intensive counseling and education programs.
Significance: Emphasized the balance between accountability and rehabilitation for serious crimes committed by minors.

Case 2: Kyoto Arson Case (2010)
Facts: A 16-year-old set fire to a building, causing injury to several people.
Outcome: Probation and placement in a juvenile reformatory, with mandatory psychological evaluation.
Significance: Shows Japan’s approach to combining strict supervision with rehabilitation.

B. China

Legal Framework: Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China; Juvenile Delinquency Law.

Age of Criminal Responsibility: 16 years (14–16 years for serious crimes).

Principle: Protective and rehabilitative; focus on education and correction.

Case 3: Hunan Juvenile Homicide Case (2015)
Facts: A 15-year-old killed a peer in a school fight.
Outcome: Tried as a minor; placed in a juvenile correctional institution for three years, with mandatory family counseling.
Significance: Demonstrates China’s preference for educational correction rather than adult punishment.

Case 4: Shanghai Theft Case (2012)
Facts: A 13-year-old repeatedly stole electronics.
Outcome: Community service, psychological counseling, and mandatory attendance in a juvenile behavioral reform program.
Significance: Illustrates that minors under 14 are not criminally liable but still subject to protective measures.

C. India

Legal Framework: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Age of Criminal Responsibility: 7 years minimum; 16–18 may be tried as adults in heinous crimes.

Principle: Rehabilitation, care, and protection; emphasis on social reintegration.

Case 5: Delhi Juvenile Murder Case (2017)
Facts: A 17-year-old was involved in a murder during a robbery.
Outcome: Tried in a Juvenile Justice Board; sentenced to maximum 3 years in a reform facility, then reintegrated with family.
Significance: Even serious crimes by older juveniles are treated under rehabilitative law, though debate continues about whether 16–18-year-olds should face adult sentencing.

Case 6: Mumbai Juvenile Gang Case (2015)
Facts: A gang of juveniles (aged 15–17) committed theft and assault.
Outcome: Juvenile courts imposed reformative measures, including probation, vocational training, and counseling.
Significance: Shows India’s focus on skill development and social reintegration.

D. Singapore

Legal Framework: Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA).

Age of Criminal Responsibility: 7–12 years (cannot be sentenced), 12–16 years may be tried in Youth Courts.

Principle: Rehabilitation-focused with structured correctional programs.

Case 7: Singapore Juvenile Robbery Case (2013)
Facts: A 14-year-old attempted armed robbery.
Outcome: Sentenced to a rehabilitative program at the Singapore Boys’ Home, including counseling, vocational training, and community service.
Significance: Reinforces rehabilitation over incarceration for young offenders.

Case 8: Singapore Cybercrime Case (2018)
Facts: A 15-year-old hacked into school records to alter grades.
Outcome: Ordered to participate in counseling, cybersecurity education, and monitored probation.
Significance: Shows Singapore adapts juvenile justice to modern crimes while keeping rehabilitative focus.

E. South Korea

Legal Framework: Juvenile Act; Juvenile Protection Act.

Age of Criminal Responsibility: 14 years.

Principle: Rehabilitation and social reintegration; serious offences may transfer juveniles to adult courts.

Case 9: Seoul Juvenile Arson Case (2014)
Facts: A 15-year-old set fire to a residential building.
Outcome: Juvenile court ordered placement in a juvenile training school with mandatory psychological treatment.
Significance: Emphasis on behavioral correction and reintegration rather than adult punishment.

Case 10: Busan Gang Assault Case (2012)
Facts: A 16-year-old led an assault on peers.
Outcome: Ordered probation with mandatory counseling, community service, and family supervision.
Significance: Shows the use of community-based measures to prevent recidivism.

3. Comparative Observations

Country	Age of Criminal Responsibility	Focus	Punishments for Juveniles	Notable Case Examples
Japan	14+	Rehabilitation	Juvenile training schools, probation	Osaka Murder (2012), Kyoto Arson (2010)
China	16+	Education & rehab	Correctional institutions, counseling	Hunan Homicide (2015), Shanghai Theft (2012)
India	7+ (16–18 can be adult)	Care & protection	Reform facilities, probation, counseling	Delhi Murder (2017), Mumbai Gang (2015)
Singapore	7–12 (not liable), 12–16 trial	Rehab-focused	Boys’ Home, counseling, vocational training	Juvenile Robbery (2013), Cybercrime (2018)
South Korea	14+	Rehabilitation	Juvenile training school, probation	Seoul Arson (2014), Busan Gang (2012)