In 2019, the Maldives took a monumental step forward by raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) to 15 years, aligning with international child rights standards and safeguarding the future of Maldivian children and youth. This decision signified a commitment to protect, rehabilitate, and support children rather than criminalize them prematurely. Now, just a few years later, discussions about lowering the MACR back to 12 threaten to undo this progress. Lowering the MACR would be a step backward for Maldivian society, abandoning principles of the best interest of the child and risking the well-being and future potential of the nation’s children.
This position paper discusses the neuroscientific, ethical, Islamic and social justice grounds for keeping the MACR at 15, emphasizing that criminalization is not the answer for Maldivian children and youth.
1. Adolescents’ Brains Are Still Developing: Neuroscientific Evidence
Recent advances in neuroscience underscore that adolescents are not fully mature and should not be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults. Studies by institutions like the National Institute of Mental Health reveal that the prefrontal cortex—the brain area responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and understanding long-term consequences—continues developing well into a person’s mid-20s. This ongoing development means that children, especially those as young as 12, lack the cognitive and emotional maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.
Lowering the MACR would mean ignoring this scientific evidence, holding children responsible for actions they may not fully understand and are not biologically competent to comprehend. Studies indicate that young offenders act impulsively or under the influence of external pressures, such as peer influence or unstable home environments, rather than out of malicious intent (Steinberg & Monahan, Developmental Psychology). Asking children to pay the price for a system that has failed to protect or educate them is an unfair and ultimately ineffective approach to justice.
2. Moral and Ethical Concerns: Children Cannot Fully Grasp the Consequences
Ethically, society has a duty to protect children and allow them opportunities to learn and grow. Holding younger children criminally responsible conflicts with our understanding of moral development. Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development suggest that children in early adolescence are still in the preliminary stages of understanding complex ethical principles. They often base their sense of right and wrong on immediate rewards and punishments rather than a nuanced grasp of morality. This further underscores why it is inappropriate to hold children as young as 12 accountable under the criminal justice system.
From a moral standpoint, treating young children as fully culpable ignores their developmental stage and denies them the chance to rehabilitate. Instead, children need guidance, education, and support systems to steer them away from harmful behaviors and help them develop responsible decision-making skills.
3. Criminalization Damages Futures: The Impact of a Criminal Record on Youth
Criminalizing children at a young age can have far-reaching consequences, impacting their education, employment prospects, and mental health. Studies show that involvement in the criminal justice system often leads to a cycle of recidivism, where young offenders are more likely to reoffend and struggle to reintegrate into society (The Sentencing Project). For instance, children who are labeled as “criminals” are often stigmatized and marginalized, which increases the likelihood of future criminal behavior. This process of stigmatization robs them of the chance to lead productive lives and contributes to their alienation from mainstream society.
Lowering the MACR would only increase the number of young people who bear the lifelong burden of a criminal record. This approach does not make communities safer; rather, it perpetuates a cycle of crime, poverty, and social isolation. Effective justice systems recognize that children need a path to redemption and reintegration, not criminalization.
4. Social Justice and Disproportionate Impacts on Marginalized Children
Lowering the MACR would disproportionately impact children from marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds. Evidence from the United Nations and UNICEF highlights that children from economically disadvantaged or minority communities are often overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. The Caribbean region, for example, demonstrates how poverty and marginalization correlate with higher rates of juvenile incarceration (UNICEF, Justice for Children report). This trend reflects global patterns where systemic inequality funnels vulnerable children into the criminal justice system rather than providing them with the support they need.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasizes that detention of children should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, recognizing the developmental differences between children and adults. Research on Maldivian youth and reasons for disengagement conducted by Maldives National University demonstrates that children in conflict with the law often come from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, facing challenges such as high unemployment, dysfunctional family environments, and limited access to education and mental health services. Many young offenders turn to gangs or drugs as coping mechanisms, reflecting unmet needs for belonging and support rather than inherent criminal intent.
Maldivian society should strive to address the root causes of youth crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and family instability, instead of punishing children for circumstances beyond their control. The government should focus on creating equal opportunities for children from all backgrounds to ensure that the justice system does not become a means of perpetuating social inequality.
5. Rehabilitation Works Better Than Punishment: Evidence from Global Best Practices
Research consistently shows that rehabilitative and restorative approaches to juvenile justice are more effective than punitive measures in reducing recidivism. Countries with high MACRs and restorative practices, such as Sweden and Japan, report some of the lowest recidivism rates globally. For example, the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that restorative justice and therapeutic interventions significantly improve outcomes for young offenders by prioritizing education, mental health, and family support over punishment. These approaches address the underlying issues contributing to juvenile delinquency and promote successful reintegration into society (Restorative Justice).
The Maldives’ Juvenile Justice Act already supports many of these rehabilitative measures, emphasizing community service, family counseling, and education programs over detention. Lowering the MACR would undermine this forward-thinking framework, pulling the Maldives back toward a punitive model that has been shown to fail in other contexts.
6. Emotional and Psychological Immaturity: Young Offenders Act Under Duress
Research in developmental psychology highlights that young people, particularly those under 15, often act under emotional impulsiveness or environmental pressures, such as family dysfunction, poverty, or peer influence (Cauffman & Steinberg, Law and Human Behavior). These factors must be considered when assessing a child’s actions and responsibility. Lowering the MACR disregards the role of these external influences, assuming that young children possess the same level of intent and control as adults.
Children need support systems that help them develop healthy coping mechanisms and make sound decisions, not punitive measures that fail to account for their unique developmental needs.
7. Islamic Jurisprudence and Juvenile Justice: Principles of Mercy, Rehabilitation, and Rights of the Child
Islamic jurisprudence on children in conflict with the law advocates for mercy, rehabilitation, and a high MACR, mirroring the restorative justice approach and the scientific understanding of adolescent development. Lowering the MACR contradicts these principles by criminalizing children before they are developmentally ready for full responsibility. Maintaining a higher MACR and focusing on restorative methods aligns both with Islamic legal principles and international standards, safeguarding children’s potential and fostering a compassionate and supportive justice system.
In Criminal Law and the Rights of the Child in Muslim States, authors Nisrine Abiad and Farkhanda Mansoor explore how Islamic legal principles prioritize mercy, compassion, and rehabilitation in juvenile justice. They evidence how Islamic jurisprudence advocates for a separate legal regime for children, emphasizing their developmental needs and moral growth over punitive measures. In the Islamic context, mercy is considered essential when dealing with young offenders, as it reflects the belief that children have a diminished capacity for accountability and are more susceptible to positive reform.
Several Muslim-majority countries apply these principles within their legal frameworks, often setting a higher Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) than in non-Islamic legal systems. For instance, countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia have introduced youth-specific legal frameworks based on principles of mercy and rehabilitation. These countries use Islamic concepts of restorative justice to avoid the criminalization of youth, favouring diversionary practices such as counseling, family intervention, and educational programs to guide children back into society as productive members.
By promoting mercy and rehabilitation, these Islamic-based juvenile justice practices align with international child rights standards in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. These principles as insisted upon in the analysis of Islamic jurisprudence are integral to achieving a just legal system that respects the developmental needs and rights of children in Muslim states, setting a valuable example for both Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. This approach not only upholds the child’s dignity but also aligns with the global move towards restorative justice, which focuses on the child’s potential for growth and change.
Key Principles from Islamic Jurisprudence on Criminal Law and Children include:
- Mercy and Compassion in Punishment: A central tenet of Islamic law is the concept of rahma (mercy). Islamic legal scholars argue that punishment for children should be limited, as they are not seen as fully accountable in the way adults are. This aligns with restorative justice, which seeks to avoid punitive measures for minors, focusing instead on rehabilitation. The principle of mercy in Islamic jurisprudence reflects the belief that children should be given the opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society.
- High Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR): Islamic law traditionally sets a higher threshold for criminal responsibility. For instance, under Islamic teachings, a child is not seen as fully responsible for their actions until they reach the age of discernment, often associated with puberty, which generally occurs between 12 and 15 years. This approach aligns with the global push for a higher MACR, as it acknowledges that children below this age lack the maturity required for full accountability. Lowering the MACR contradicts this principle by treating younger children as fully responsible in ways that Islamic law would deem inappropriate.
- Focus on Rehabilitation over Retribution: Islamic jurisprudence values islah (reformation) over uqubat(punishment) for young offenders. The goal is not to punish but to correct behavior through constructive guidance and community support. In many Muslim-majority countries, this principle is applied through rehabilitative measures like counseling, community service, and educational programs rather than imprisonment. Restorative justice models align closely with this concept by addressing the causes of delinquency and providing young people with the resources to make positive changes.
- Justice as a Collective Responsibility: Islamic law also encourages community involvement in addressing juvenile delinquency, recognizing that children’s behavior is often shaped by their environment. Community-based solutions, including family interventions and educational support, are seen as ways to uphold justice while nurturing a child’s potential. This approach aligns with restorative justice’s emphasis on involving the child’s family and community in the rehabilitative process.
- Avoidance of Stigmatization: Islamic principles stress the importance of protecting a child’s dignity and future, avoiding measures that would label them as “criminals” and hinder their growth. Children in conflict with the law are seen as requiring protection and guidance, not labels that might permanently harm their prospects. This is consistent with restorative justice, which aims to resolve conflict without branding young offenders with a criminal identity, thus promoting their reintegration into society.
8. The Political Motivations Behind Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
The decision to lower the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in various countries frequently reflects a political maneuver rather than a commitment to the rights and best interests of children. The influence of public fear, populist rhetoric, political cycles, and a lack of evidence-based policy-making contribute to a landscape where the well-being of children can become secondary to political objectives. This highlights the necessity for advocacy focused on informed, child-centered policies that prioritize rehabilitation and support for youth, rather than punitive measures driven by political expediency.
. This shift is typically influenced by several key factors:
- Public Perceptions and Media Influence
High-profile juvenile crimes often spark intense media coverage, which can amplify public fears about youth violence. The media’s portrayal of certain incidents can lead the public to believe that youth crime is on the rise, even when evidence suggests otherwise. Politicians may respond by proposing to lower the MACR as a way to appear “tough on crime” and address public fears, even if this response is disproportionate to the actual risk.
For example, after certain violent crimes committed by minors in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, media campaigns and public outcry pushed for harsher punishments for young offenders, fueling discussions on lowering the MACR as a preventive measure, despite a lack of evidence that this approach would reduce crime.
The discourse in Maldives around lowering the MACR is also highly influenced by a case of severe bullying inside a mosque on a minor by minors earlier this year in Alif Alif Rasdhoo.
- Populist and “Tough on Crime” Rhetoric
Populist politics often emphasize punitive justice over rehabilitative or preventative measures, aiming to respond to voter sentiments rather than expert recommendations. Lowering the MACR is an easy, visible change that allows governments to demonstrate a stance on crime without addressing the complex social, economic, or educational issues that contribute to juvenile delinquency.
This trend can be seen in countries where leaders push for quick fixes to crime, using policies that are more about political image than effective, sustainable solutions. Lowering the MACR aligns with populist rhetoric, as it provides a seemingly straightforward answer to crime concerns, though it disregards the evidence supporting rehabilitation and the long-term impacts of criminalization on children and youth.
- Political Changes and Policy Reversals
Changes in government can lead to rapid shifts in policies regarding juvenile justice, including MACR. New administrations may implement drastic changes as a means of establishing a distinct identity from their predecessors, sometimes reverting to punitive approaches that reflect the prevailing political climate rather than evidence-based practices. This can result in a lack of continuity in child protection policies, negatively impacting children’s rights.
Politicians may focus on the immediate appeal of such measures without considering the wealth of research indicating that punitive approaches increase recidivism among youth and harm their long-term prospects. Countries like Australia and the United States have seen fluctuations in MACR-related policies based on government changes and electoral promises rather than evidence-based discussions.
- Ignoring Research and Best Interests of the Child
Numerous studies from organizations like UNICEF, the American Psychological Association, and various child rights advocacy groups highlight the negative effects of early criminalization on youth, including increased recidivism, long-term psychological harm, and reduced chances of social reintegration. These studies emphasize that lowering the MACR is not only ineffective in deterring youth crime but also detrimental to children’s development and future opportunities.
However, these findings are often sidelined in favor of politically expedient choices. Rather than investing in social services, mental health support, education, or community-based programs, politicians may opt for the faster, more visible path of lowering the MACR, even though this approach ignores the child’s best interests and global best practices.
- International Examples of Alternative Approaches
In contrast, countries that have maintained higher MACRs and invested in restorative justice, such as Norway, Japan, and New Zealand, show lower rates of juvenile recidivism. These nations focus on rehabilitation and community involvement, adhering to international guidelines that emphasize child development and rights. These approaches have proven more effective in supporting youth and reducing crime over time, as they target the underlying factors contributing to juvenile offenses rather than imposing harsh penalties that often lead to repeat offending.
The trend of lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) in various countries often emerges as a politically motivated decision, heavily influenced by public perceptions, populist sentiments, and changes in government leadership rather than being grounded in robust evidence or the best interests of the child.
| Country | Change | Criticism/Rationale |
| Denmark | MACR lowered from 15 to 14 in 2010, then raised back to 15 in 2012. | CRC expressed concern over the decision, emphasizing the need to respect children’s rights. |
| Georgia | MACR reduced from 14 to 12 in 2008, reinstated to 14 in 2010. | Justified by the government citing serious crimes but reversed under pressure from international bodies. |
| Hungary | MACR decreased from 14 to 12 in 2012 for serious offenses. | CRC recommended returning to 14 for all offenses, highlighting a lack of adherence to children’s rights. |
| Panama | MACR reduced from 14 to 12 in 2010. | CRC urged Panama to align its juvenile justice system with international conventions. |
| Argentina | Proposal to lower MACR from 16 to 14, but did not result in legislation. | – |
| Bolivia | Law passed to lower MACR from 16 to 14. | Criticized for avoiding socio-economic root causes of crime. |
| Brazil | Proposed amendment to lower MACR from 18 to 16 has not passed; faces constitutional challenges. | – |
| India | Juvenile Justice Act allows children aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for serious offenses. | – |
| Korea | Proposal to lower MACR from 12 to 10 faced public backlash but did not advance. | – |
| Philippines | Initial proposals to lower MACR were halted, maintaining the age at 15. | – |
Source: States lowering age of criminal responsibility | CRIN
7. Diversion, Not Detention: A More Effective Path Forward
Studies by UNICEF and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) indicate that diversion programs—alternatives to detention, such as counseling, education, and community service—are effective in reducing recidivism and helping children reintegrate into society. Programs that prioritize support and rehabilitation over punishment address the root causes of juvenile delinquency and help young people make better choices in the future (UNICEF IDLO Research Study on Diversion and Alternatives to Detention). The Maldives’ current Juvenile Justice Act emphasizes such diversion programs as a means of preventing youth from entering the criminal system.
The 2018 Child Rights International Network (CRIN) review provides a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of higher Minimum Ages of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) and restorative justice models in several countries.
The models in Sweden, Finland, and Japan demonstrate that high MACRs combined with restorative and rehabilitative juvenile justice practices yield better outcomes for young offenders. These systems emphasize early intervention, family and community involvement, and social integration rather than punitive measures. The evidence from these countries underscores the ineffectiveness of punitive justice in achieving long-term reductions in juvenile crime and supports a model of youth justice that emphasizes education, rehabilitation, and social support as more effective tools for reducing recidivism and supporting young people’s future prospects.
Sweden: High MACR and Emphasis on Child Welfare
MACR Policy: Sweden has one of the highest MACRs in the world, set at 15 years. Below this age, children cannot be prosecuted or formally detained within the criminal justice system, reflecting a commitment to treat minors in conflict with the law as children in need of social and educational support, rather than as criminals.
Restorative Model: Sweden’s juvenile justice approach is deeply rooted in restorative practices. Children under 15 who commit offenses are often referred to social services rather than being criminalized. These services provide counseling, family support, and social interventions, ensuring that young offenders receive assistance for underlying issues, such as family challenges or school problems, rather than punitive measures.
Outcomes: Studies show that Sweden’s model results in significantly lower recidivism rates. According to a 2016 report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, recidivism among young offenders is lower than in many European countries with punitive approaches. By focusing on support and reintegration, Sweden sees positive social outcomes for youth and a low rate of repeat offenses.
Finland: Rehabilitation-Centric Youth Justice System
MACR Policy: Like Sweden, Finland has a high MACR set at 15. Children below this age are handled through social welfare systems rather than the criminal justice system.
Evidence-Based Programs: Finland’s juvenile justice system incorporates evidence-based rehabilitative programs such as Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), both of which address family and community factors contributing to juvenile behavior. These therapeutic interventions have shown a reduction in behavioral problems and recidivism.
Family and Community Focus: Finnish juvenile justice emphasizes a “family and community-based” approach. Young offenders are placed within programs designed to address the specific social or family circumstances that may have influenced their behavior, helping them reintegrate into their communities rather than experience isolation from it.
Outcomes: Finland reports a recidivism rate among youth of less than 15%, compared to over 50% in more punitive systems (Aebi et al., 2015). The positive social and psychological outcomes attributed to Finland’s rehabilitative practices demonstrate that a child-centric, supportive approach can yield lower crime rates and higher rates of successful reintegration.
Japan: Social Integration and Community-Based Rehabilitation
MACR Policy: Japan sets the MACR at 14, and it has a juvenile justice system that focuses on reintegration rather than punishment. For minors under 14, Japan’s welfare and educational systems play the primary role in addressing behavioral issues.
Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs: For older youth (14-20), Japan uses community-based interventions and probation programs with a strong emphasis on family involvement. Young offenders are often placed with probation officers who work closely with the youth’s family and school to ensure continued support. The probation system includes intensive monitoring but emphasizes social rehabilitation.
Restorative Justice Practices: Japan’s approach includes restorative justice practices, where juveniles may be encouraged to understand the impact of their actions on victims and the community. Programs include apologies to victims and family reconciliation sessions, which are culturally significant and promote a sense of responsibility and healing.
Outcomes: Japan’s system has one of the lowest youth recidivism rates in the world, around 10% for juveniles (UNODC, 2016). By focusing on social reintegration, Japan’s approach supports young offenders in developing productive lives within society rather than experiencing the stigma and isolation often associated with punitive measures.
Reverting to a lower MACR and focusing on punitive approaches ignores these valuable findings, disregarding international best practices and threatening to place more Maldivian youth in a damaging cycle of criminal justice involvement.
Children Should Not Pay the Price for Systemic Failures
The push to lower the MACR in the Maldives to 12 is a step backward that ignores scientific evidence, moral reasoning, and global best practices. The burden of criminal responsibility should not be placed on young children, who lack the maturity to fully comprehend their actions. Instead, Maldivian society must take responsibility for providing children with the resources and support they need to thrive, including access to quality education, mental health services, and safe family environments.
Lowering the MACR places the burden of society’s failures on children. Why should they pay for the adults’ failure to build a safe and supportive environment? Keeping the MACR at 15, as set in 2019, upholds the right of every child to receive care, rehabilitation, and a fair chance at life. The Maldives has already taken bold steps to align its juvenile justice system with international child rights standards—let us continue on this path, protecting our children and investing in a safer, more compassionate society.
References:
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
Research on adolescent brain development showing that the prefrontal cortex matures well into the mid-20s, affecting decision-making and impulse control. Retrieved from: https://www.nimh.nih.gov.
Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. (2008).
Adolescents’ susceptibility to peer influence: Relation to individual differences and the collective peer environment. Developmental Psychology, 44(1).
Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (1996).
Adolescents’ psychosocial immaturity and susceptibility to external influences: Implications for juvenile justice policy. Law and Human Behavior, 20(2).
Kohlberg, L. (1981).
The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Harper & Row Publishers.
The Sentencing Project. (2022).
Why youth incarceration fails: An updated review of the evidence. Retrieved from: https://www.sentencingproject.org.
The Sentencing Project.
Incarceration and crime: A weak relationship. Retrieved from: https://www.sentencingproject.org.
UNICEF. (2005).
Justice for children: The situation of children in conflict with the law in the Eastern Caribbean. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/easterncaribbean/media/1896/file/ECA_Sitan.pdf.
Human Rights Watch.
Reports on racial disparities in juvenile justice systems globally. Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Justice for children in conflict with the law. Retrieved from: https://www.unodc.org.
UNICEF.
The State of the World’s Children (Annual Reports). Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org.
Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Restorative justice and its benefits for juvenile offenders. Retrieved from: https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/Restorative-Justice_f01.pdf.
Child Rights International Network (CRIN).
Stop Making Children Criminals campaign and database on countries lowering MACR. Retrieved from: https://archive.crin.org/en/home/what-we-do/policy/stop-making-children-criminals.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). (1989).
International guidelines emphasizing the best interests of the child in juvenile justice systems.
UNICEF. (2016).
Diversion not detention: Regional study on juvenile justice policies and practices in East Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/eap/media/2401/file/Diversion%20not%20Detention.pdf.
UNICEF and IDLO. (2014).
Promotion of diversion and alternative measures to detention for children in conflict with the law. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/tunisia/en/media/566/file/IDLO-Report-MENA-Diversion-and-Alternatives-toDetention-April-2014.pdf.
UNICEF Advocacy Brief (No. 2).
Diversion of children in conflict with the law from formal judicial proceedings in Europe and Central Asia. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/tunisia/en/media/566/file/IDLO-Report-MENA-Diversion-and-Alternatives-toDetention-April-2014.pdf.
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
General Comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice. Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org.
MNU Youth Disengagement Report.
Explores issues surrounding youth disengagement in the Maldives, including its impact on justice policies and MACR.
Case Examples from CRIN:
Denmark, Georgia, Hungary, Panama, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, India, Korea, and the Philippines. Retrieved from: https://archive.crin.org.
Leave a Reply