Outdated science drives juvenile justice?

Outdated science drives juvenile justice? | Daily Tribune

Instead of immediately backing proposals to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, Marcos called for a careful study of children’s mental health, the effects of social media and the possibility that young people are becoming desensitized to violence.

His remarks raised a more fundamental question. Rather than asking whether the law should be amended, perhaps we should first ask whether the science underpinning that law still reflects the realities of childhood in 2026.

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act was enacted in 2006, drawing on decades of research that showed that the adolescent brain was still developing.

Neuroscience has consistently found that the prefrontal cortex — the region responsible for judgment, impulse control, planning and weighing consequences — does not fully mature until early adulthood.

That understanding remains widely accepted. Teenagers are generally more susceptible to peer pressure, emotional reactions, and impulsive decisions than adults. It explains why juvenile justice systems around the world distinguish children from adults.

But the children studied then are not the children growing up now.

Today’s generation is the first to be raised on smartphones, algorithm-driven social media, online gaming, endless streams of violent content and constant digital connectivity. Their social interactions, emotional development, and exposure to violence differ dramatically from those of children even two decades ago.

Has that changed how young people process violence? Are children becoming desensitized at an earlier age? Or has technology simply made existing problems more visible? The truth is that science has yet to provide definitive answers.

International experience also cautions against simplistic solutions.

The Philippines set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15. Germany and Japan set it at 14. Scotland at 12. Singapore, England and Wales begin criminal responsibility at 10.

Yet none relies solely on punishment. Germany emphasizes education and rehabilitation. Japan’s Family Courts focus on correction and reintegration.

Scotland takes many young offenders through its Children’s Hearings System. Singapore combines accountability with probation, counseling, and reformative training.

The numbers are equally revealing. In Australia, where the minimum age is generally 10, youth offenders account for about eight percent of all offenders.

In Singapore, youths comprise roughly 18 percent of those arrested. In England and Wales, children make up only a small share of offenders, while the youth custody population has steadily declined.

The Philippine experience is similar. Children in conflict with the law account for only a small, single-digit share of offenders. Cases fell from 26,850 in 2017 to 4,383 in 2024 before recent incidents renewed public concern.

In 2020, the Philippine National Police recorded 15,892 children in conflict with the law, but only 37 were detained in Bureau of Jail Management and Penology facilities. Most were placed under the care of social workers and their families.

These figures suggest that lowering the age of criminal responsibility, by itself, is unlikely to reduce crime. Countries with lower age thresholds do not necessarily experience less juvenile offending.

The current law also provides more accountability than many assume. Children below 15 are exempt from criminal liability but must undergo intervention programs.

Those aged 15 to under 18 may still be prosecuted if they acted with discernment, meaning they understood the nature and consequences of their actions.

Congress should certainly review the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. But the review should not begin with the assumption that either the law or the science behind it is beyond question.

Childhood has changed profoundly since 2006. Before rewriting the law, we should first determine whether our understanding of childhood has kept pace.