Abstract:
This research paper analyses New Zealand’s and Germany’s legislation concerning the age of
criminal responsibility. It seeks to answer the question at which particular age children are
beyond doubt mature enough to be held criminally responsible. In order to answer this question,
the paper compares the different minimum ages of criminal responsibility in New Zealand and
Germany.
This paper provides a brief overview of the historical development of the minimum age of
criminal responsibility in both countries from a “classical approach”, which treated children as
small adults, to a “modern approach”, which recognises the unique vulnerability of children
and distinguishes between adults and children. Furthermore, it analyses the prerequisites and
consequences of the current regulations for the penalisation of young offenders.
This paper examines the ongoing debates in New Zealand and Germany regarding the “right”
minimum age of criminal responsibility and the necessary degree of maturity. In doing so, it
investigates the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child,
the public debate as well as police statistics.
Finally, this paper concludes that twelve-year-olds are mature enough to be held criminally
responsible as they usually can distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with this
appreciation. Therefore, this paper recommends that New Zealand should raise the minimum
age of criminal responsibility from ten to twelve years and apply it to all criminal offences and
that Germany should lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from fourteen to twelve
years.
