NCJ Number
70455
Journal
Revue de l'institut de sociologie Volume: 1976 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (1976) Pages: 51-59
Date Published
1976
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Lack of judgment as grounds for exempting juvenile delinquents from responsibility for criminal acts according to Belgian law is discussed.
Abstract
Children under the age of 7 years have long been considered incapable of understanding the moral significance of criminal acts. From the age of 7 until the age of legal majority, juveniles have been held legally responsible for their actions but their punishments have been reduced. A 1912 law empowered the judge to assess whether or not minors were capable of understanding their acts, but minors under 16 years old were presumed incapable of judging an act's criminal nature or of controlling their own behavior. Minors under 16 could only be penalized with educative measures. The age limits have gradually been extended from 16 to 18 years, as juveniles in this category may be incapable of controlling their actions. However, a 1965 law makes it possible for a judge to rule that 16-to-18-year-olds should be tried as adults if educative measures seem inadequate. The legal presumption of immature judgment is reversed for military personnel to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. An exception is also made in a 1972 law for 16-to-18-year olds involved in certain traffic offenses, in part because of a rise in traffic offenses. Thus, the same individual may be deemed responsible or incapable of responsibility, depending on the offense in question. Furthermore, adult court judges may refer a case to juvenile court if they feel that protective measures are appropriate. A solution to this confusing state of affairs would be to reestablish 16 as the absolute legal age, while permitting reversal of the presumption of judgment for 16-to-18-year-olds. Notes are supplied. --in French.