Jantien Leenknecht | KU Leuven (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Jantien Leenknecht
Social Science Research Network, Aug 26, 2020
In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can an... more In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can and may be connected to the degree of responsibility that a person can already bear. Civil liability, criminal responsibility and criminal majority are examples of concepts on which age limits are based, but whose definition and impact is not always clear. Especially as far as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is concerned, confusion exists in legal doctrine. This is apparent from the fact that international comparison tables often show different MACRs for the same country. Moreover, the international literature often seems to define youth justice systems by means of a lower and upper limit, whereas such a dual distinction is too basic to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of the systems. This contribution therefore maps out and conceptually clarifies the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits that exist within youth justice systems. To that extent, the age limits of six countries are analysed: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. This legal comparison ultimately leads to a proposal to establish a coherent conceptual framework on age limits in youth justice.
New Journal of European Criminal Law
In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthe... more In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthen and facilitate judicial cooperation over the years but does not clearly nor uniformly define the concepts of ‘criminal matters’, ‘criminal proceedings’, ‘criminal responsibility’ and so on in any of the cooperation instruments themselves. It is however important to know as to what the EU understands by the notion ‘criminal’ because Member States have developed specific rules in response to delinquent behaviour of minors, which are somewhat different from ‘general’ criminal law. The question arises whether the existing cooperation mechanisms only apply to ‘adult’ criminal matters or also include youth justice matters. This article therefore aims to find out whether a consistent and shared view exists on the meaning of the concept ‘criminal’ and to subsequently clarify to what extent the existing EU instruments in criminal matters also apply to juvenile offenders.
Erasmus Law Review
Age limits in youth justice systems are essential to determine what type of reaction a juvenile o... more Age limits in youth justice systems are essential to determine what type of reaction a juvenile offender can be subject to. International legal doctrine traditionally distinguishes between the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and the age of criminal majority (ACM) to define the scope of the youth justice system. Whereas the ACM is fixed at the age of 18 in almost every country, much more diversity can be found with regard to the MACR, as proven by the several age limits tables in the international comparative literature. In past years, efforts have been made to clarify what the MACR and its implications are and how it should be distinguished from the ACM. However, other relevant age limits exist within a youth justice system that restrict the number of possible reactions, determine the maximum duration or severity of a reaction or determine which court or institution is competent. A dual distinction between the MACR and the ACM is therefore too simple to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of youth justice systems. Moreover, international comparative tables sometimes show different MACRs for the same country, which suggests that the concept of 'criminal responsibility' is interpreted in different ways and the ambiguity remains. This contribution analyses the age limits of six countries with divergent age limits. Three countries, two of which are European and one non-European, were selected because they have a low MACR according to the prevailing comparative tables: the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and New Zealand. The other three selected countries, also two European and one non-European, have a high MACR according to those tables: Belgium, Austria and Argentina. By mapping out and conceptually clarifying the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits within these countries, the article aims to achieve greater clarity and conceptual coherence with regard to age limits in youth justice systems. This article therefore builds, to some extent, on the more extensive comparative approach that is used in the comparative analyses in F.
Social Science Research Network, Aug 26, 2020
In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can an... more In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can and may be connected to the degree of responsibility that a person can already bear. Civil liability, criminal responsibility and criminal majority are examples of concepts on which age limits are based, but whose definition and impact is not always clear. Especially as far as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is concerned, confusion exists in legal doctrine. This is apparent from the fact that international comparison tables often show different MACRs for the same country. Moreover, the international literature often seems to define youth justice systems by means of a lower and upper limit, whereas such a dual distinction is too basic to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of the systems. This contribution therefore maps out and conceptually clarifies the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits that exist within youth justice systems. To that extent, the age limits of six countries are analysed: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. This legal comparison ultimately leads to a proposal to establish a coherent conceptual framework on age limits in youth justice.
New Journal of European Criminal Law
In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthe... more In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthen and facilitate judicial cooperation over the years but does not clearly nor uniformly define the concepts of ‘criminal matters’, ‘criminal proceedings’, ‘criminal responsibility’ and so on in any of the cooperation instruments themselves. It is however important to know as to what the EU understands by the notion ‘criminal’ because Member States have developed specific rules in response to delinquent behaviour of minors, which are somewhat different from ‘general’ criminal law. The question arises whether the existing cooperation mechanisms only apply to ‘adult’ criminal matters or also include youth justice matters. This article therefore aims to find out whether a consistent and shared view exists on the meaning of the concept ‘criminal’ and to subsequently clarify to what extent the existing EU instruments in criminal matters also apply to juvenile offenders.
Erasmus Law Review
Age limits in youth justice systems are essential to determine what type of reaction a juvenile o... more Age limits in youth justice systems are essential to determine what type of reaction a juvenile offender can be subject to. International legal doctrine traditionally distinguishes between the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and the age of criminal majority (ACM) to define the scope of the youth justice system. Whereas the ACM is fixed at the age of 18 in almost every country, much more diversity can be found with regard to the MACR, as proven by the several age limits tables in the international comparative literature. In past years, efforts have been made to clarify what the MACR and its implications are and how it should be distinguished from the ACM. However, other relevant age limits exist within a youth justice system that restrict the number of possible reactions, determine the maximum duration or severity of a reaction or determine which court or institution is competent. A dual distinction between the MACR and the ACM is therefore too simple to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of youth justice systems. Moreover, international comparative tables sometimes show different MACRs for the same country, which suggests that the concept of 'criminal responsibility' is interpreted in different ways and the ambiguity remains. This contribution analyses the age limits of six countries with divergent age limits. Three countries, two of which are European and one non-European, were selected because they have a low MACR according to the prevailing comparative tables: the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and New Zealand. The other three selected countries, also two European and one non-European, have a high MACR according to those tables: Belgium, Austria and Argentina. By mapping out and conceptually clarifying the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits within these countries, the article aims to achieve greater clarity and conceptual coherence with regard to age limits in youth justice systems. This article therefore builds, to some extent, on the more extensive comparative approach that is used in the comparative analyses in F.