Att. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mahmut KAPLAN & Att. Zeynep ZORER KAPLAN
Looking at the 2024 data from the Ministry of Justice's General Directorate of Criminal Records and Statistics, there has been no significant change in the share of offenses committed by children within the total caseload brought before public prosecutors' offices. According to Ministry data, the rates are as follows:
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| 4.9 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.6 |
According to case data resolved in 2024, decisions were rendered on 178,498 alleged offenses committed by 106,723 children in conflict with the law. According to a crime statistics report prepared by the German Police, an increase in violent offenses among children and youth was observed in 2024. Accordingly, violent offenses committed by children (the 0–14 age group) increased by 11.3%, while those committed by youth increased by 3.8%. The same report notes that, in terms of violent offenses, children's share rose to 7% and youth's share to 15.9% — the highest levels on record. As these statistics show, the tendency toward violence among children and youth is increasing. This increase — particularly the fact that the gravest form of violence, intentional killing, is being committed by children — has reopened debate over the regulations concerning the punishment of children. Discussion has concentrated on increasing the penalties prescribed for children. Under Article 31 of Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, minority of age is regulated: a child who commits an offense (a "Child in Conflict with the Law") bears no criminal responsibility if they are between 0 and 12 years of age, though security measures may still be applied. Where the child is between 12 and 15 years of age, responsibility is determined through a two-tier distinction. If the child's capacity to perceive the legal meaning and consequences of the act, or to direct their behavior accordingly, has not developed, they are treated the same as the first group and only child-specific security measures apply. If that capacity has developed, criminal responsibility exists — but because of their young age, a lack of full capacity for fault is presumed, and the law accordingly provides for reduced criminal responsibility for this group. Under the regulation, such persons shall be sentenced, where the offense would otherwise require aggravated life imprisonment, to imprisonment of twelve to fifteen years; where it would require life imprisonment, to imprisonment of nine to eleven years. Other penalties are reduced by half, and in this case the term of imprisonment for any single act may not exceed seven years. Where the Child in Conflict with the Law is between 15 and 18 years of age, the legislature has accepted criminal responsibility without further distinction — but, based on the view that this group's capacity for fault is less developed than that of adults, a reduced sentence is provided for compared to adult offenders. Under the regulation, persons who have completed fifteen but not eighteen years of age at the time the act was committed shall be sentenced, where the offense would otherwise require aggravated life imprisonment, to imprisonment of eighteen to twenty-four years; where it would require life imprisonment, to imprisonment of twelve to fifteen years. Other penalties are reduced by one-third, and in this case the term of imprisonment for any single act may not exceed twelve years.
Looking at the statutory framework, it is only accurate to say that children bear no criminal responsibility for the 0–12 age group. The legislature has, after all, accepted criminal responsibility under Article 31 for children who have completed 12 years of age. However, because the juvenile criminal justice system is intended primarily to rehabilitate children through alternative measures rather than to punish them, a public perception of impunity has arisen. That perception of impunity, admittedly, applies to the entire criminal justice system in recent times, largely owing to special amnesty-style arrangements frequently introduced under the names of conditional release and probation — indeed, the matter has gone beyond mere perception to become an actual phenomenon of impunity. As the subject of this article is the perception of impunity specific to children rather than the general perception of impunity, we leave the broader discussion and critique of that other issue outside our scope, reserving it for separate treatment.
Looking at comparative law, we see that the relevant regulations are similar to the Turkish Criminal Code. For example, under French criminal law, children who have not completed 13 years of age bear no criminal responsibility. Children who have completed 13 years of age do bear criminal responsibility, though a reduced sentence may be applied on account of their young age (French Criminal Code, Art. 122-8).
Articles 97–98 of the Italian Criminal Code regulate minority of age; under Article 97, criminal responsibility begins upon completion of the 14th year. Accordingly, children who have not completed 14 years of age bear no criminal responsibility, though measures may be taken if the child poses a danger to society. For children who have completed 14 but not 18 years of age, a two-tier distinction is made, and it is examined whether the child has the capacity for discernment. If a child in this group lacks that capacity, there is no criminal responsibility, but child-specific measures are ordered. If the child's capacity to understand the consequences of their actions and to direct their behavior has developed, criminal responsibility exists — but a reduced sentence is imposed relative to adults. Those who have completed 18 years of age are considered adults and bear full criminal responsibility.
German criminal law likewise applies different regulations for children than for adults. Article 19 of the German Criminal Code provides that children who have not completed 14 years of age at the time of the offense bear no criminal responsibility. As in Italian law, the age at which criminal responsibility begins under German law is 14. Under German law, persons aged 14–18 are termed "juveniles," and those who have completed 18 but not 21 years of age are termed "young adults." Under Section 3 of the Juvenile Courts Act (JGG), where a juvenile who has completed 14 years of age commits an offense, the existence of their capacity for discernment is examined. If they have the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the act and to act accordingly, they bear criminal responsibility. If the young offender's capacity for discernment has not developed, protective and corrective measures are taken instead. Young adults bear criminal responsibility.
The data we obtain from comparative law shows that the age of criminal responsibility for juvenile offending under the current Turkish Criminal Code is set earlier than in these comparable systems, and likewise demonstrates that the penalties prescribed for children are not insubstantial. Nevertheless, particularly where violent offenses are concerned, this has prompted calls to increase penalties as a reaction to the perceived failure to protect children. Indeed, virtually all political approaches to the issue have focused on increasing penalties. It must be emphasized, however, that when "criminal law and harsher penalties" become the first response that comes to mind in a dispute or problem, the real underlying issues are swept under the rug and left unresolved. That criminal law — which is supposed to be a last resort in disputes — has increasingly become the first thing people reach for is itself concerning from the standpoint of individual liberty.
Without addressing the root causes of juvenile offending and without educational or economic measures — supported by appropriate policing measures — aimed at eliminating those causes, increasing penalties will not contribute to solving the problem. For this reason, rather than tinkering with sentence lengths for juvenile offending, what is needed is to eliminate the environment that turns children — whom parents have raised through sleepless nights, often at the cost of their own careers — into instruments of crime before they even turn 18. That, in turn, requires serious research and effort. Increasing penalties instead of investing that effort will not meaningfully contribute to the fight against juvenile crime.
Children are not born knowing how to commit crime. Offending, therefore, is learned. While aggression may be accepted as an instinct or drive inherent to human nature, its expression as an act directed against another person only becomes possible where a suitable environment exists. This is precisely the point at which the causes that push children toward crime, and the environments that create fertile ground for it, must be identified and appropriate measures taken. Without losing sight of the sociological reality that we are, as a society, drawn to crime and criminals, we must guard against lending support to aggression and violence. Just as it is troubling when a Child in Conflict with the Law treats their own offense as an act of heroism and shares it on social media, it is equally troubling when such children are glorified or praised for the crimes they have committed. Although glorifying crime and criminals is itself an offense under the Turkish Criminal Code, because that offense is defined as a concrete-danger offense, such posts and expressions of support largely go unpunished. Since the problem cannot be solved simply by punishing the child, the system as a whole must respond to the issue. Otherwise, solutions sought purely through the length of sentences will produce incomplete or mistaken results.
[1] https://adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/7042025092455Adalet_%C4%B0statistikleri_2024%20T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e_Ingilizce.pdf
[2] https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformationen/StatistikenLagebilder/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/PKS2024/Polizeiliche_Kriminalstatistik_2024/Polizeiliche_Kriminalstatistik_2024_node.html