South Korea Considers Lowering Juvenile Offender Age for Serious Crimes

The South Korean government is advancing a plan to lower the age threshold for juvenile offenders, known as 'chokbeop sonyeon,' from the current 14 to 13 years old, but only for serious crimes such as murder and robbery.

This proposed revision follows a social dialogue committee's recommendation to maintain the existing age limit. The government's move appears to be a compromise, reflecting public concerns while attempting to address the issue of juvenile crime. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family stated that the plan might be presented to the State Council as early as May 30.

“

There is no evidence that lowering the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles reduces children's crime.

Under the Juvenile Act, offenders below the age of 14 are typically subject to protective measures rather than criminal punishment, focusing on their rehabilitation and growth. The government's proposed exceptions would target repeat offenders or those who commit grave offenses.

“

Instead of trying this without even implementing them, lowering the age of juvenile offenders goes against the constitutional spirit that prohibits the criminal punishment of minors.

However, experts have voiced strong opposition to the age reduction. Han Young-sun, a visiting professor at Kyonggi University, pointed to international examples, such as Denmark, which reverted its decision to lower the age after experiencing an increase in recidivism. He argued there is no evidence that lowering the age of criminal responsibility deters juvenile crime.

Critics also question the government's decision to proceed with lowering the age despite the social dialogue committee's recommendations. Bae Sang-gyun, a researcher at the Korea Institute of Criminal Justice and Policy, stated that the committee had proposed institutional improvements, such as strengthening police measures and addressing overcrowding in juvenile detention centers. He argued that lowering the age without implementing these reforms contradicts the constitutional intent of protecting minors.

“

I do not understand why the conclusion that lowering the age does not have a crime deterrence effect, which was presented after two months of discussion and expert opinions during the public hearing process, is not being accepted.