How Psychology Factors Into Debates On Juvenile Justice

Tricia Clare Oco already saw children cramped in congested jails for committing crimes such as stealing candies and loitering on the streets.

“It’s quite alarming because some of these children meet people inside the jail, and when they meet them, they are becoming part of a network,” Oco, executive director of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), told The Philippine STAR.

“When they step out of prison, they’re worse off than they were when they went in,” she said.

Those were the days before Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility from nine to 15.

Former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. had effectively set such a low age when he signed the Child and Youth Welfare Code in December 1974, defining a “youthful offender” as someone who is over nine but under 21 at the time the crime was committed.

Calls to reform the juvenile justice system started gaining ground in the 1990s, when the Philippines ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and former president Fidel Ramos reinstituted the death penalty.

With two students attacking a high school in Tacloban City on June 22, killing three minors, policymakers are zeroing in on the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Immaturity

While crime deterrence is the primary focus of debates, a child’s psychology is an aspect often left out of the conversation.

Oco noted that it’s unfair to impose the same penalty on juvenile delinquents as on adult criminals. The minimum age of criminal responsibility was set at 15, she said, because “while your brain development is not yet complete, at least you’re going there.”

“You somehow have the discernment to know what’s right or wrong,” the JJWC chief stressed.

The brain of an individual, according to Oco, fully matures by the time they reach between 22 and 25.

Danish researchers found that when Denmark lowered its minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 for a 20-month trial period from July 2010 to March 2012, it caused a 15-percent increase in crime incidents involving 14-year-olds, especially those with prior criminal records.

Juvenile delinquents were well-informed of their country’s justice system, according to researchers from Aarhus University, defeating the purpose of policymakers to deter crime.

“They may irrationally believe that they will not be caught, or they may commit crime spontaneously due to myopia or impetuosity,” the 2025 research, titled “Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Consequences for Juvenile Crime,” stated.

“These explanations are in conjunction with knowledge from neuroscience, suggesting limited decision capacity in adolescence caused by immaturity, which reduces executive functions such as impulse control and risk avoidance,” it argued.

There was a renewed push at the House of Representatives in 2017 to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, in line with former president Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-criminality campaign.

Former speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, in his bill, wanted that threshold to return to nine. Other lawmakers opted for 12.

The Psychological Association of the Philippines, at the time, emphasized that adolescents aged 12 to 16 can demonstrate risky behavior because the prefrontal regions of their brains, which govern impulse control, decision-making and emotional regulation, are not yet fully developed.

Oco advised lawmakers that if they’re going to amend the juvenile justice law, they should strengthen multi-agency response in reforming young offenders so that all facets of their rehabilitation will be covered, including the Department of Education for their continued studies and the Department of Health for the state of their mental health.