Hiroko Goto: Juveniles Known as "Specified Juveniles"—The Juvenile Act Amendment and Social Responsibility

From this April 1, the legal order that has been taken for granted for nearly 150 years will change significantly. In 1876 (Meiji 9), a Grand Council of State Proclamation (No. 41) was issued stating that "henceforth, twenty full years shall be fixed as the age of majority." This was inherited by the current Civil Code (1896), and 20 has been the age of adulthood ever since. Now, it will become 18, and those under 18 will be minors. Consequently, on April 1, people who are currently 18 or 19 years old (born between April 2, 2002, and April 1, 2004) will all become adults at once.

In this society, the age at which one becomes an adult has long been 20. The first changes occurred regarding the age for changing the Constitution or electing representatives of the people, such as in the National Referendum Act (2007) and the Public Offices Election Act amendment (2015). Lowering the voting age grants the right to vote, and since its exercise is left to the individual's will, it simply increased the number of options available.

On the other hand, the age of adulthood in the Civil Code signifies departure from a broad protection program as a minor. For minors, contracts made without the consent of a person with parental authority can be canceled later, protecting them from consumer damage and other issues. By lowering that age to 18, 18- and 19-year-olds will be treated as adults, requiring a more cautious approach in contracts and other matters. Furthermore, the marriageable age for women, which had been criticized as discriminatory, will be raised from 16 to 18 *1.

Because the impact of lowering the age of adulthood in the Civil Code is large-scale and affects all aspects of the daily lives of 18- and 19-year-olds, many related reports began to appear in March. However, the change in age starting April 1 does not occur only in the Civil Code.

The Juvenile Act is a law that treats juveniles who have committed crimes or other acts as delinquent juveniles and gives them special treatment due to their immaturity. Since 1949, the Juvenile Act has defined those under 20 as juveniles and those 20 or older as adults, providing educational and protective responses to delinquent juveniles that differ from those for adults.

All cases involving juveniles aged 14 to under 20 who have committed acts violating penal laws and regulations, such as the Penal Code, are sent to the Family Court. They undergo investigations by Family Court investigators and, in some cases, assessments by psychological experts at a juvenile classification home. Based on the information collected there and information from the investigation stage, a judge determines what kind of treatment is necessary for the juvenile. Furthermore, even for those under 14 who are below the age of criminal responsibility, they are subject to Family Court hearings as juvenile offenders under the age of criminal responsibility, although this is predicated on the judgment of a child consultation center. Additionally, even if a crime has not been committed, if there is a risk of committing a crime in the future, they are subject to Family Court hearings as pre-delinquent juveniles.

Except in cases where a hearing is not commenced (non-commencement of hearing) because the educational measures of the Family Court investigator are deemed sufficient, the Family Court holds a hearing. It may hand down protective measures (such as probation or referral to a juvenile training school) or a disposition to send the case back to the public prosecutors office for indictment to undergo the same trial as an adult (referral to a prosecutor = reverse referral).

Under the amendment to the Juvenile Act last year, 18- and 19-year-old juveniles are now treated as "Specified Juveniles," distinct from juveniles under 18. However, from April 1, the age subject to the Juvenile Act remains 20 as before. Therefore, even for Specified Juveniles, the procedure of sending all cases to the Family Court remains unchanged.

First, in the case of Specified Juveniles, the application of pre-delinquency has been abolished. In other words, unless they commit a crime, they are not subject to the educational and protective responses of the Juvenile Act, making them an exception to the Juvenile Act system of preventing delinquency through early intervention (Article 65, Paragraph 1).

Furthermore, protective measures for Specified Juveniles now differ from the past, as referral to a juvenile training school is to be carried out "within a scope that does not exceed a reasonable limit, taking into account the gravity of the circumstances of the offense" (Article 64, Paragraph 1). If a juvenile is placed on probation as a protective measure and fails to observe the compliance rules while under the guidance and supervision of a probation officer or volunteer probation officer in society, it is not only possible to confine them in a juvenile training school through a Family Court hearing as before, but it is also now possible to return them to society once it is determined that the necessary education has been completed (Article 66).

Additionally, the scope of cases that are, in principle, referred to a prosecutor (mandatory reverse referral cases) has been expanded. Previously limited to cases where a victim died due to an intentional act (Article 20, Paragraph 2), it now includes cases where the minimum statutory penalty is imprisonment with or without work for one year or more. Consequently, crimes such as robbery and forcible sexual intercourse have also become mandatory reverse referral cases (Article 62, Paragraph 2).

In addition, for Specified Juveniles, special treatment when a juvenile is sentenced to guilt in a criminal trial has been abolished. For example, restrictions on qualifications that did not exist before will now be imposed (Article 67). Furthermore, if a prosecutor indicts the juvenile in a District Court after a reverse referral, it has become possible to engage in "inferential reporting" (reporting that allows the juvenile to be identified), which was previously prohibited (Article 68).

This is the fifth amendment to the Juvenile Act in the 21st century. The previous four amendments were basically carried out because a high-profile juvenile incident occurred, and the existing system was judged to be insufficient. For example, the 2000 amendment to the Juvenile Act was triggered by juvenile incidents such as the Yamagata mat death case and the Kobe serial child murders.

The latter case, in which a 14-year-old boy killed two elementary school students, highlighted the problem that under the Juvenile Act at the time, criminal trials similar to those for adults could not be conducted for juveniles under 16. As a result, for those 14 or older, the Family Court became able to perform reverse referrals to hold them responsible in criminal trials. Additionally, victims, who previously could not obtain any information because hearings were closed to the public, became able to state their opinions, be informed of the details of the disposition, and read or copy hearing records. Through subsequent amendments to the Juvenile Act, victims can now also observe hearings, although this is limited to certain cases.

The reason this amendment to the Juvenile Act was carried out, despite no major juvenile incident occurring and no increase or worsening of juvenile crime, was to align it with the amendments to the Public Offices Election Act and the Civil Code mentioned at the beginning. Regarding this amendment, "consistency in national laws" was mentioned from the start and became the reason for the amendment *2.

Although discussions on amending the Juvenile Act based on "consistency in national laws" began at the Legislative Council in 2017, there was strong opposition to lowering the age of adulthood in the Juvenile Act, based on the premise that the current Juvenile Act performs a certain function for "sound development" (Article 1) to prevent offenders from growing into criminals. The deadlock was broken by politics.

In July 2020, the ruling parties' Juvenile Act Project Team (PT) compiled the "Ruling Party PT Agreement on the Future of the Juvenile Act (Basic Thinking)." It stated, "They are still in the process of growth, possess plasticity, and educational treatment is necessary and effective for rehabilitation and prevention of recidivism. Therefore, they require treatment different from those aged 20 or older." It was decided to keep 18- and 19-year-olds as juveniles under the Juvenile Act while treating them differently from those under 18 *3. Following this, a recommendation was made in October 2020, leading to the 2021 legal amendment and the birth of the category of Specified Juveniles.

The amended Juvenile Act will also come into effect on April 1, and the treatment of Specified Juveniles will begin.

The first impact will be the reporting of juveniles' real names. Regarding this point, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office stated that for juvenile cases indicted after reverse referral from April 1 onwards, real names may be disclosed depending on the case. Under the Juvenile Act, in the case of a reverse referral, the prosecutors office must, in principle, indict (Article 45, Item 5). Of course, even if the prosecutors office discloses the name, whether to report the real name is a decision for each media organization. However, in reporting where real-name coverage is the principle, it is hardly expected that they will refrain from it once substantial official approval has been given.

Therefore, despite being juveniles under the Juvenile Act, their real names will be reported after indictment. If they are given punishments similar to adults and return to society from prisons or other facilities, having their real names reported will naturally pose a major handicap in finding employment.

The Juvenile Act considers that juveniles commit crimes because society failed to discover them as victims of child abuse or bullying and left them neglected. It demands that the society that turned the juvenile into a delinquent juvenile fulfill its responsibility by providing assistance for the juvenile's social reintegration. With the lifting of the ban on real-name reporting, there is a high possibility that society and the media will push the responsibility solely onto the Specified Juvenile and fail to fulfill their own responsibility. Exempting the inaction of a society that failed to discover the problems the juvenile was facing until the age of 18 or 19 is not the response required by the Juvenile Act.

In addition, even if a case goes to criminal trial, if the District Court determines that protective measures are more appropriate, the case may be sent back to the Family Court, and a referral to a juvenile training school may be handed down (Article 55 transfer). Until now, Family Courts and juvenile training schools have never handled juveniles for whom real-name reporting was justified. Therefore, it is unpredictable what kind of impact this will have on proceedings and treatment.

Since the current Juvenile Act amendment, other than real-name reporting, primarily questions how the Family Court should face Specified Juveniles, the risk to the juvenile's social reintegration can be minimized if the Family Court takes actions in line with the sound development of juveniles as stated in Article 1 of the Juvenile Act.

The Juvenile Act does not specifically mention how society should fulfill its responsibility for turning a Specified Juvenile into a delinquent juvenile. This time, unlike the Civil Code, Specified Juveniles remain juveniles under the Juvenile Act. This legal amendment calls for each of us to reconsider the social responsibility to soundly develop these Specified Juveniles. We must not forget that a Specified Juvenile is a juvenile and a being who possesses the right to be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Act.

<a id="words"></a>[Notes]

* 1 For details on the specific changes, see https://www.govonline.go.jp/useful/article/201808/2.html.

* 3 https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001329126.pdf