The minimum age of criminal responsibility internationally—history, systems and the future

Delmage, Enys, Anderson, Philip, Blower, Aileen, Brown, Aaron, Davoren, Mary, Enell, Sofia, Gibson, Ross, Henriksen, Ann Karina, Johns, Diana, Kaltiala, Riittakerttu, Carvalho, Maria João Leote de, Pol, Thimo Martijn van der, Mulder, Eva, Oostermeijer, Sanne, Orlando, Mirian S., Souverein, Fleur, Taylor, Pamela ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3998-6095, Thibaut, Florence and Hales, Heidi 2026. The minimum age of criminal responsibility internationally—history, systems and the future. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 10.1002/cbm.70024

PDF - Published Version Download (946kB)

Abstract

Background: In most countries, a criminal conviction requires evidence that the individual committed the act and that they had the mental capacity to understand what they were doing and that it was wrong. Youth, as an indicator of brain development, is one factor affecting criminal capacity. Worldwide, this has commonly been managed in part by setting in law an age below which criminal incapacity is presumed, so no prosecution is possible. Considerable variation in the MACR was confirmed across 195 countries. Some countries have no MACR. Otherwise, the MACR ranges from 7 years (some African and South Asian countries) to 18 (some South American countries); many North Asian, European and a few African countries set theirs at 14 which is the most frequently found level, and also the minimum age recommended by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, how do countries set or change their MACR? Aims: To explore change, efforts to change and impact of change in MACR internationally. Methods: Between February 1st 2022 and December 31st 2023, members of an international research group (GIRAF—Group of International Researchers in Adolescent Forensics) were asked to complete an emailed questionnaire about changes in the MACR, or efforts to change it, in their country since 2000. Reports were then collated, circulated and discussed within the group. Results: Among the 14 countries responding in detail about the MACR, efforts to raise the MACR had been successful in three, but in nine such efforts had been unsuccessful; in at least two countries pressures were to lower their MACR, but in only one, Denmark, did that happen (from 15 to 14) in the data collection period (though this change was subsequently reversed). Factors most influencing retention of a lower age were exceptional individual cases, which triggered press and political interest in retaining a higher age, and well‐evidenced and developed arguments from legal, social and medical or other clinical bodies. Conclusions and Implications: The wide differences in the MACR between countries suggest under‐use of evidence in deciding it. We need more governmental willingness to bring the MACR at least to the UN‐recommended level—but accompanied by research into the impact of this. Efforts targeted exclusively on child and adolescent welfare may have less effect if they also force children through the criminal justice system, with consequent impact on self‐identity and sense of citizenship. A low MACR is also likely to be more directly and indirectly costly than a higher one.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Published Online
Status:	In Press
Schools:	Schools > Medicine
Additional Information:	License information from Publisher: LICENSE 1: URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Publisher:	Wiley
ISSN:	0957-9664
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	9 February 2026
Date of Acceptance:	16 January 2026
Last Modified:	09 Feb 2026 12:01
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/184534

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item