DOC. The Crime in Cenei - when does the criminal liability of adolescents intervene in the juvenile justice systems in Europe

The crime in Cenei, Timiș County, where a 15-year-old adolescent, Mario, was killed, and among the alleged criminals is a 13-year-old boy, has thrown Romania into a deep and emotional debate regarding the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The tragedy has generated a public petition to lower this age, and the Minister of Justice, Radu Marinescu, has already announced the formation of a working group to analyze the feasibility of such a legislative change. Here is the existing legal framework in Romania, the perspective of specialists and psychologists, as well as how other European countries and international bodies approach juvenile justice.

What does the Penal Code say in Romania

According to the Romanian Penal Code, the minimum age at which a person can be held criminally responsible is 14 years. Article 113 of the Penal Code states that "a minor who has not reached the age of 14 cannot be held criminally responsible." Between 14 and 16 years, a minor is held criminally responsible only if it is proven, through expertise, that they had discernment at the time of committing the act, and over 16 years, the minor is held criminally responsible, but the penalties are generally milder than for adults, having an educational and rehabilitative character and reduced sentences. The crime in Cenei has exposed the direct consequence of this structure: the 13-year-old boy suspected of participating in Mario's murder cannot have a criminal record, cannot be tried and convicted, regardless of the severity of the act.

Judge Cristi Danileț publicly summarized the situation: at 13 years, the child cannot be prosecuted; the solutions are protective measures, including isolation from society through child protection instruments, not through the penal code.

Against the backdrop of public emotion, the initiative "Mario's Law" emerged, a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of people, calling for minors under 14 to be able to be held criminally responsible for extremely serious acts, such as murder or qualified murder. The Minister of Justice, Radu Marinescu, announced the establishment of a working group to analyze the feasibility of lowering the threshold, either generally or through an exception for extremely violent crimes.

What do specialists and psychologists say about lowering the age

The proposal to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility has sparked strong reactions among specialists in law, psychology, and child protection. Many warn of the significant risks that such a change could bring.

Cristi Danileț, a jurist, emphasized that the age of 14 is a "legal fiction" and that, in practice, discernment can vary. However, he warned that a simple reduction of the age without a complex approach could be counterproductive.

The organization Save the Children, for example, opposes such a measure, arguing that lowering the age would expose a large number of minors to the rigors of the penal system, without addressing the deep causes of criminal behavior.

Thus, Save the Children insists on neurodevelopment data: the prefrontal cortex, responsible for impulse control and understanding consequences, is not matured at 12-13 years; expectations of "adult rationality" at this age are unrealistic. The organization emphasizes that early incarceration of minors increases the likelihood of subsequent delinquency, stigmatizes the child, and disconnects them from school and support services, which conflicts with the best interests of the child enshrined in the UN Convention.

Psychologists emphasize that the cognitive and emotional development of children under 14 is still in full formation. The ability to fully understand the consequences of actions, to control impulses, and to differentiate right from wrong is often immature. The central nervous system, the frontal lobe responsible for reasoning and decision-making, is not fully developed at this age. Therefore, attributing them criminal responsibility similar to that of adults could be considered an unrealistic and harmful approach. Instead of penalties, specialists advocate for therapeutic, educational, and social interventions aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating minors, as well as identifying and eliminating risk factors from their environment.

Criminologists, such as Vlad Zaha, warn that lowering the age could overload the justice system with thousands of cases of minors and that juvenile violence should be viewed as a public health issue. The focus should be on prevention, early identification of children with behavioral problems, and providing adequate support to families and communities.

On an international level, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly recommended that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should not be below 12 years and encourages states to raise it to 14-16 years. More recently, the positions of UN bodies and experts in children's rights converge towards the idea that 14 years should be the acceptable minimum, and any lower age is difficult to justify from a human rights perspective.

How juvenile justice systems look in Europe

In Spain, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 14 years. Minors aged between 14 and 18 are judged by juvenile courts and are subject to specific measures that emphasize education and reintegration.

In Germany, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 14 years. For minors aged between 14 and 18, the Juvenile Justice Act applies, which provides for educational and resocialization measures, and imprisonment is a last resort. Thus, under 14 years, there is a total lack of responsibility; between 14-18 years, the child is only held responsible if they are "sufficiently mature" to understand the injustice of the act, and until 21 years, juvenile criminal law rules can apply, according to Child Rights International Network.

In Italy, the minimum age is also 14 years. Similarly, the Italian juvenile justice system focuses on recovery and re-education of minors, avoiding detention as much as possible.

One of the countries with a lower minimum age of criminal responsibility, of 12 years, is The Netherlands. However, even in these cases, a specialized juvenile justice system applies, with measures adapted to the age and development level of the minor. Thus, the system allows for adapted penalties and educational measures; for extremely serious acts, older minors can receive penalties close to those of adults, but still within a juvenile framework.

In Hungary, on the other hand, individuals can be held criminally responsible for any crime committed from the age of 14 and from the age of 12 for murder, voluntary manslaughter, bodily harm, robbery, and theft, provided that the minor had the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their act. Thus, it imposes a special threshold for violent crimes, conditioned by premeditation and the severity of the consequences.

In general, the trend in most European countries is to have a minimum age of criminal responsibility around 14 years and to provide a distinct legal framework for minors that prioritizes re-education and reintegration, to the detriment of punitive punishment.

The UK, one of the harshest youth justice systems in Europe

The case in Cenei has been compared by Romanians on social media to the mini-series Adolescence, where, as in the real case in Romania, the perpetrator is a 13-year-old boy.

The United Kingdom is often cited as an example of a harsh system for minors, especially due to the very low age of criminal responsibility. In England and Wales, children can be prosecuted from the age of 10, without a legal presumption of lack of discernment; under 18, they enter the juvenile justice system, but can be tried in courts similar to those for adults in serious cases.

In the UK, a 10-year-old can be charged as an adult. Although the juvenile justice system is designed to be different from that for adults, the idea that such a young child can be subjected to a full criminal trial remains controversial. Data shows an increase in violent crimes committed by adolescents, including against parents, with an increase of over 60% in the last decade in London. Shocking cases have also been reported of children as young as 4 bringing knives to primary schools in the UK, and even a three-year-old reported to the police for an alleged crime in Wales, highlighting the complexity and sensitivity of cases involving minors.

Scotland recently raised the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years, a move that, although superior to England and Wales, remains below European standards. Northern Ireland also faces a "grey area" between 10 and 14 years, an aspect discussed by the Stormont Justice Committee, for the need for clarification and, implicitly, raising the age.

In contrast, the Republic of Ireland, along with most EU member states, operates with a higher minimum age, reflecting an approach that prioritizes the cognitive and emotional development of children.

Famous cases, such as the conviction of very young children for murder (recounted in the literature and dramatized in films like "Responsible Child"), have fueled the perception that the British system treats children "like adults in miniature." Critics, such as former Supreme Court President Lady Hale, call for raising the age to 14 years and invoke UN standards and neuroscientific evidence.

Main criticisms of the youth justice system in the UK

The very low age of criminal responsibility (10 years) contradicts the recommendations of the UN Committee and the international trend to raise the threshold to at least 14 years.

Juvenile detention in Young Offender Institutions is described as dangerous and traumatizing – harsh conditions, violence among detainees, limited access to education and psychological support.

The media exposure of cases involving very young minors to punitive measures, accompanied by public stigmatization, makes reintegration almost impossible and increases the risk of recidivism.

Children's rights organizations argue that the system remains more punitive than rehabilitative, despite declared reforms.

In this context, the discussion in Romania after the crime in Cenei falls between two models: one of "reaction," which proposes a drastic lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to respond to public emotion, and one of "protection," supported by most psychologists and experts in children's rights, which calls for strengthening educational, social, and protective measures, possibly combined with a very strict exception mechanism for extreme crimes.

The crime in Cenei has revealed a complex and sensitive issue. Although public emotion is understandable, a hasty legislative decision to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, without a thorough analysis of the social, psychological, and legal implications, could have undesirable consequences. The solution does not seem to reside in a simple modification of the penal law, but in an integrated approach that includes investments in education, social services, mental health, and juvenile delinquency prevention programs.

Synthesis made with the help of a data monitoring flow provided by the media monitoring platform NewsVibe Romania. The analysis was enhanced with the help of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence tools.