Kids in the Blind Spot of the Law

  As the cruelty of juvenile crimes worsens, heated debate continues with many people questioning the existence of juvenile law. “We must show them how severe the law is and teach them that there are consequences when they harm others.” “Anyone can criticize juvenile offenders. However, only us judges can give these juveniles a second chance.” These two representative views of current juvenile crimes are from Juvenile Justice, on Netflix.
  Juvenile law has different punishments according to age. Juvenile law targets those under the age of 19 and is aimed at ensuring that minors grow up soundly. It is impossible to punish those under the age of 10 because they cannot commit a crime. Those aged 10 to 14 are criminal minors, criminal punishment is not possible, and protective measures can be taken. Both criminal punishment and protection measures are possible for those aged 14 to 19. In other words, a person under the age of 14 can avoid criminal punishment even if they commit brutal crimes. As a result, voices are calling for strengthening punishment, ranging from the hard-line theory that the juvenile law system should be abolished to the opinion that the standard age should be lowered. On the other hand, there are cautious opinions that strengthening punishment has a negligible effect on crime prevention and cultivation is also important. 
  It may be time for some compromise alternatives that do not create unfair situations for victims and lower juvenile offenders’ recidivism rates. The juvenile law only sets the age within the law, and social consensus or discussion is not taking place regarding the extent of the crime. Also, the types and psychology of teenage crimes are gradually diversifying. Therefore, it is time to rebuild the appropriate social system and reach a social consensus to establish the proper society.