Juvenile offender crime victims lack rights that perpetrators receive

South Korea is considering lowering the age threshold for juvenile offenders, known as 'chokbeop소년,' from the current range of 10 to 14 years old to 10 to 13 years old. This proposed change would mean that 13-year-olds committing serious crimes could face criminal punishment, such as imprisonment or probation, rather than the protective measures currently applied under the juvenile justice system.

However, many experts express strong reservations, arguing that lowering the age limit contravenes international human rights standards. They also contend that such a move would be ineffective in promoting the social rehabilitation of young offenders or in preventing future crimes. Despite these expert opinions, public sentiment often surges in favor of criminalizing juvenile offenders, particularly following high-profile cases or popular media portrayals of serious youth crime.

A more constructive aspect of the current debate, separate from the recurring age-lowering discussion, is the burgeoning attention to the rights of victims within the juvenile justice system. Currently, victims of offenses committed by 'chokbeop소년' are denied rights that are standard in the adult criminal justice system, such as the right to be informed about the outcome of the perpetrator's case, the right to state their case, and the right to access trial records. This creates a paradox where juvenile offenders receive protection due to their age, while their victims, even if also minors, do not.

The juvenile justice process for 'chokbeop소년' is legally classified as a 'protective procedure,' not a criminal one. This means police lack coercive investigative powers, and cannot seize crucial evidence like phones or social media data. Victims are not even guaranteed the right to have their victim status officially recognized, a fundamental step in seeking restitution. Juvenile trials are held privately to prevent stigmatization, leaving victims unaware of the proceedings or the disposition of their case. Unlike Denmark, which lowered its minimum age of criminal responsibility only to raise it again due to increased recidivism, South Korea's focus might be better placed on amending the Juvenile Act to fully guarantee victims' rights, aligning more closely with principles of judicial justice.

“

Isn't it more in line with judicial justice to amend the Juvenile Act so that victims' rights can be fully guaranteed, rather than focusing on lowering the age of juvenile offenders, the effectiveness of which has been proven lacking in other countries?