Hiroko Goto: Juveniles Known as "Specified Juveniles"—Juvenile Act Amendments 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 Proclamation of the Grand Council of State (No. 41) was issued stating that "henceforth, the age of twenty full years shall be fixed as the age of majority," which was inherited by the current Civil Code (1896), setting the age of adulthood at 20. This will now 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 at once become adults.

In this society, the age at which one becomes an adult has long been 20. This first began to change regarding the age for amending the Constitution or electing national representatives, such as with the National Referendum Act (2007) and the amendment to the Public Offices Election Act (2015). Lowering the voting age grants the right to vote, and since its exercise is left to the individual's will, it merely increased the available options.

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 minors 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 starting 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, giving 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 or older but under 20 who have committed acts violating penal laws, such as the Penal Code, are sent to the Family Court, where they undergo investigation by Family Court probation officers and, in some cases, assessment 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 adjudication by the Family Court 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 adjudication by the Family Court as pre-delinquent juveniles.

Except in cases where adjudication is not commenced (non-commencement of adjudication) because the educational measures of the Family Court probation officer are sufficient, the Family Court holds an adjudication and pronounces 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).

This time, due to last year's amendment to the Juvenile Act, 18- and 19-year-old juveniles are to be treated as "Specified Juveniles," differently from juveniles under 18. However, from April 1, the age subject to the Juvenile Act remains 20 as before, so even for Specified Juveniles, there is no change in the procedure where all cases are referred to the Family Court.

First, in the case of Specified Juveniles, the application of pre-delinquency has been eliminated. 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).

Also, protective measures for Specified Juveniles differ from before, 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). In protective measures, if a person is placed on probation 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 adjudication as before, but it has also become possible to return them to society once it is determined that the necessary education has been completed (Article 66).

Furthermore, cases that are in principle referred to a prosecutor (mandatory reverse referral cases), which were previously limited to cases where a victim died due to an intentional act (Article 20, Paragraph 2), have been expanded to include cases where the minimum punishment is imprisonment with or without work for one year or more. Therefore, 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 be implemented (Article 67), and 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 times 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.

In the latter case, where a 14-year-old boy killed two elementary school students, the fact that criminal trials similar to those for adults could not be conducted for juveniles under 16 under the Juvenile Act at the time became an issue. Now, if a juvenile is 14 or older, the Family Court can perform a reverse referral and hold them accountable in a criminal trial. Additionally, victims who previously could not obtain any information because adjudications were closed to the public can now state their opinions, be informed of the details of the disposition, and read or copy the records of the adjudication. Through subsequent amendments to the Juvenile Act, victims can now also observe proceedings, although this is limited to certain cases.

The reason this amendment to the Juvenile Act was carried out, even though no major juvenile incident occurred and juvenile crime has not increased or become more heinous, 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 law" 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 law" 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 fulfills a certain function for "sound development" (Article 1) to prevent offenders from growing into criminals, and the discussions reached a deadlock. It was politics that broke it.

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 Concept)," stating that "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 report was issued in October 2020, leading to the 2021 legal amendment and the birth of the category of Specified Juveniles.

The amended Juvenile Act also comes into effect this 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 being reverse-referred on or after April 1, 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 reporting is the principle, it is hardly expected that they will refrain from it despite being given a practical stamp of approval.

Therefore, despite being a juvenile under the Juvenile Act, the real name will be reported after indictment. When they are sentenced to the same punishment as an adult and return to society from prison or elsewhere, if their real name has been reported, they will naturally face a major handicap in employment and other areas.

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 omission of society, which failed to discover the problems the juvenile was facing until the age of 18 or 19, is not the response sought 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 returned to the Family Court once more, and referral to a juvenile training school may be pronounced (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 amendment to the Juvenile Act, other than real-name reporting, mainly asks how the Family Court will face Specified Juveniles, the risk to the juvenile's social reintegration can be minimized by the Family Court taking a response that aligns with the sound development of juveniles under Article 1 of the Juvenile Act.

The Juvenile Act does not specifically mention how society should fulfill its responsibility for turning Specified Juveniles into delinquent juveniles. This time, unlike the Civil Code, Specified Juveniles remain juveniles under the Juvenile Act. This legal amendment asks each and every one of us to reconsider the responsibility of society to soundly develop these Specified Juveniles. We must not forget that Specified Juveniles are juveniles and are beings who have the right to be treated as juveniles 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