[Expert Contribution] Debate over lowering the age of boys... Gap between ‘punishment’ and ‘rehabilitation’

The debate surrounding lowering the age of Chobeop Boys is always hot. Every time a case of a criminal minor who committed a violent crime is reported, criticism is repeated that “they are not punished because they are juveniles under the law.”

In the current legal system, a minor under the law refers to a criminal minor between the ages of 10 and 14 who has committed an act that violates penal laws. Although they are not subject to criminal punishment, such as imprisonment or fines, they are subject to protective measures under the Juvenile Act. Protective measures do not stop at the level of simple warnings or warnings, but a total of 10 measures are set, including △ entrustment to guardian supervision △ order to attend classes △ community service order △ probation (short-term, long-term) △ entrustment to a child welfare facility △ entrustment to a medical rehabilitation juvenile center △ transfer to a juvenile facility (within 1 month, short-term, long-term). Its intensity can never be considered light. In particular, transfer to a juvenile detention facility is a measure of confinement to a facility for a certain period of time, and has a significant impact on the person involved in that their physical freedom is substantially restricted.

Nevertheless, the biggest reason why the perception that ‘punishment is weak’ is formed is the difference in the nature of criminal punishment and protective measures. While criminal punishment has the nature of retribution and sanctions, protective measures aim at rehabilitation and resocialization. This is because the purpose of the Juvenile Act itself is to “take necessary measures, such as protective measures to adjust the environment of anti-social boys and correct their behavior, and help them grow in a healthy manner.”

In other words, society is demanding increasingly stronger punishment, but the law maintains a reform-oriented framework, and this gap is the essence of the conflict surrounding the juvenile system.

However, many of the juvenile cases occur due to complex factors such as problems in the home environment, neglect, and maladjustment to school. The lowering of the minimum age for application of the Juvenile Act can be understood in this context. As the age of juvenile delinquency is decreasing and the nature of the crime is becoming a social problem in many cases, it is recommended that the government intervene early in the lives of anti-social juveniles.

The problem is when this opportunity for edification is not properly utilized. If youth are left without appropriate intervention, they are more likely to commit more serious crimes as adults, ultimately causing greater damage and costs to society as a whole. Looking at some violent crime cases, the need to supplement the system is clearly acknowledged, and a more stringent response is required, especially in cases where the seriousness and repeatability of the crime are clear.

However, the direction does not result in a single solution of ‘lowering the age.’ What is more important is to intervene appropriately at the stage of delinquency to prevent recidivism and to effectively implement a system that increases the possibility of returning to society. The discussion should go beyond emotional arguments and focus on essential areas to increase the effectiveness of protective measures, provide practical support to victims, and strengthen follow-up management to prevent recidivism.

[View full article]
[Expert Contribution] Debate over lowering the age of boys... Gap between ‘punishment’ and ‘rehabilitation’ (Shortcut)