In January 2023, a magistrate noted that existing criminal laws concerning minors required updating. Any basis for such a claim centres around the fact that while 16-year-olds are allowed to get married, run for office, and even vote in national elections, they are nevertheless considered minors when it comes to crime. Yet, is there any justification for lowering the age of criminal responsibility?
The age of criminal responsibility in Malta is currently 16, with those aged between 14 and 16 facing criminal liability only if they commit serious violent offences, such as intentional homicide, rape, or robbery. Malta's criminal code at present holds that no child under the age of 14 can be held criminally liable, which means that children under 14 cannot be arrested or charged with a crime.
What the magistrate noted has attracted some attention, mostly because recent years have seen a growing number of violent offences committed by very young people. The aim of any possible legal amendment to our criminal code would be to better respond to serious violent offences by minors. I perceive a growing number of Maltese who believe that lowering the age of criminal responsibility is a necessary adjustment. Nowadays, most children have easy access to the Internet and online content, and, thus, they are found involved in criminal cases in which they were unlikely to get involved in the past. Additionally, we are having situations that indicate that cases of intentional injury, robbery, and other violent offences perpetrated by minors are on the rise and surprisingly involve children aged between 12 and 14. In this sense, the public's support for the adjustment is understandable, as it will help to deter potential crimes among juveniles.
Yet, the question of what end punishment should be a means of easily crops up again. Should there be retribution or reformation for criminal lawbreakers? It can be argued that lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not help as much as expected and may even cause undue lifelong damage to delinquents. This is especially true given that many of these young offenders are themselves victims of their environments.
Additionally, early adolescence is a period marked by neurodevelopmental immaturity, and offenders have limited competence. For these reasons, improving the societal and familial environments juveniles are exposed to might be a preferable method of reducing crime rates. Appropriate corrective education is also seen as having an important role in helping delinquents lead a normal life, benefiting both individuals and society. In this sense, our Juvenile Court system has contributed greatly.
A valid counterargument to what I have just stated could be that Malta’s judicial system focuses on the redemption of delinquents, with punishment playing only an auxiliary role. While this dynamic is still necessary and useful, being too kind or tolerant to problematic minors can backfire rather than assist in rehabilitation.
Cases where perpetrators of serious violent crimes are not tried as criminals due to their young age have been triggering a strong backlash from society, especially the victims and their families, and causing society to doubt the country's judicial system. Simply lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not eradicate crimes committed by minors or prevent minors from repeating offences. Therefore, any draft amendment should not only lower the age of criminal liability for serious offences such as homicide, sexual assault, and other violent crimes to 12 but also establish mechanisms for offering corrective education to minors under 16 who are exempt from criminal punishment.
Undeniably, the fact that minors are exempt from criminal responsibility plays a big role in encouraging minors to take part in crimes. As the number of minors taking part in serious crimes continues to rise, so too does public sentiment in favour of lowering the age of criminal responsibility.
It might be that minor offenders' judgement and mental maturity commonly surpass those of ordinary minors at the same age. However, this explanation is not sufficiently convincing to warrant a change in the criminal age. Similarly, lowering the age may be viewed as a form of inaction on the part of our country's judicial system. As far as minor offenders are concerned, the purpose of the judicial system is not to punish but to correct their behaviour. To a large extent, their family background and even society at large should take a bigger share of responsibility for their committing crimes at such an early age. There is merit in improving the environment in which young offenders grow up.
Could it be, then, that our juvenile justice system needs beefing up? If so, our judicial system has a lot of urgent work to do to help minors correct themselves instead of focusing on their age. Undeniably, to some extent, lowering the age will help to deter potential minor offenders from committing crimes, but if a young child is criminalised, this stain will remain on their record, affecting them for the rest of their life. In this sense, it is difficult to predict whether lowering the age will help or not. The experiences of some delinquents have shown that, if not properly handled, criminal punishment will only spur their impulses to commit more crimes after they are released from prison.
When it comes to judicial protection for minor criminal offenders, on the one hand, further damage to society must be prevented, but on the other hand, the juvenile's healthy growth and future development should also be taken into consideration.
A draft amendment can be proposed in order to curb juveniles' impulse to commit crimes by lowering the age to 12, but it is still highly dubious whether this adjustment will be effective. Delinquents cause damage to society, while at the same time, they are also victims of unfriendly environments. Thus, neither incarcerating them like ordinary criminals nor directly setting them free without consequence is the best choice. We now urgently need an effective correctional education system for delinquents, plus more friendly social and family environments for them to grow up in.
Preventive measures are more important in deterring crime when it comes to minors, as they are still at the starting line of life.