Only Masking the Issue: Raising the Criminal Age Does Not Address Youth Crime

Commentary

The Victorian state government has committed to increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 years old to 12, and eventually to 14 years old by 2027 in an attempt to prevent young individuals from entering the criminal justice system at an early age.

However, a recent instance involving a 14-year-old with over 380 charges who had his case dismissed due to his age demonstrates the flaws in plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

A magistrate described him as “causing terror” in the community, highlighting the shortcomings of such initiatives.

Failing to hold young offenders accountable for their actions will not address the problem of youth crime. In fact, it may reinforce their sense of impunity and do little to curb the surge in home invasions, thefts, assaults, and robberies following the pandemic.

The Victorian Crime Statistics Agency indicates a 37 percent increase in alleged offenses committed by individuals aged 10 to 14 in the last five years, with over 6,800 alleged offenses reported in 2024.

However, data from the Productivity Commission shows that only 15 individuals aged 10 to 13 were incarcerated during the 2022-23 fiscal year.

These statistics highlight the consequences of not holding young offenders accountable or providing avenues for rehabilitation. Many youths boldly flaunt their crimes on social media, evidencing their disrespect for the law.

The justification for raising the age limit for criminal responsibility based on keeping children in schools instead of the criminal justice system is unlikely to change their attitudes.

This approach may teach young offenders that they can escape repercussions for their actions and create opportunities for older criminals to enlist younger individuals to commit crimes without fear of prosecution.

Lack of Options for Judges

Furthermore, the discourse on the age of criminal responsibility assumes that involvement in the criminal justice system automatically results in imprisonment for children.

This highlights a fundamental flaw in the current system—specifically, the limited deterrents available to judges when sentencing young individuals.

It is widely recognized that detention can have detrimental effects on young offenders and should be avoided whenever possible.

Instead, many non-violent offenders receive lenient non-custodial sentences that fail to address the underlying causes of their behavior.

Judges need access to punishments that are suitable for offenders who do not warrant incarceration but require intervention to address their conduct and decision-making.

Emulating Successful Models

Sentencing reform should begin by adopting effective practices from the United States.

Rancho Cielo in California has implemented a successful program for at-risk youth and non-violent offenders on probation, focusing on rehabilitation and equipping them with life skills.

Participants are enrolled as students and receive a high school education while attending workshops to learn practical skills for employment.

Operating at a fraction of the cost of local prisons, the ranch has reduced youth reoffending rates from 40 percent to 15 percent over two decades.

Such programs not only remove offenders from negative social influences but also prevent them from engaging in criminal activities.

The most dangerous offender is one who has nothing to lose. Providing hope and opportunities for young offenders to build a future gives them something valuable to lose.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.