Front page › Rights & Law

Rights & Law

Sentencing of Child Offenders: Why Adolescents Receive Reduced Sentences

Sentencing a 16- or 17-year-old offender is an uncompromising peculiarity of the English and Welsh youth justice system. These young individuals, who would ordinarily be serving lengthy prison terms, are instead subject to special guidelines that typically scale down their sentences to roughly half or two-thirds the tariff an adult would receive.

childjustice.org.za1778 words Reference piece — kept current, not tied to a news cycle

Who Counts as a Child in Sentencing, and Why That Matters

In England and Wales, any individual between the ages of 10 and 17, inclusive, falls into the youth justice system. This classification is determined by the age at the time of conviction, not the age at the commission of the offence. This age-based distinction is more than a mere bureaucratic detail; it forms the foundation for the distinctly different sentencing guidelines and philosophies that govern how young offenders are punished and rehabilitated.

Under section 405 of the Sentencing Act 2020, if a person's exact age is uncertain, the court must use all available evidence to determine what age the individual appears to be. This provision underscores the youth-focused framework embedded in the broader English and Welsh justice system, which explicitly recognises the unique attributes of young people and aims to provide an appropriate response.[REF]1,13[/REF]

The Youth Sentencing Framework: Goals and Tools Instead of Adult Tariffs

Unlike adult sentencing, which often prioritises retribution and public safety, the youth sentencing framework in England and Wales is built on the principles of rehabilitation, welfare, and the recognition that custody should be a measure of last resort. This philosophy is reflected in the specific forms of punishment meted out to young offenders.

One of the most common youth sentences is the Detention and Training Order (DTO), which can be imposed on individuals aged 12 to 17. A DTO lasts between 4 months and 2 years, and it cannot exceed the maximum sentence an adult would receive for the same offence. Importantly, the DTO is a hybrid sentence, with half of the term served in custody and the other half under community supervision. If the child fails to comply with the community order, they may be returned to custody, illustrating the carrot-and-stick approach that aims to correct behaviour and prevent recidivism.

In addition to the DTO, other non-custodial and mixed sentences include fines, referral orders, and various community sentences. For instance, a child aged 10 to 13 can receive a maximum fine of £250, while a 14- to 17-year-old can receive up to £1,000. Referral orders, which typically last between 3 and 12 months depending on the severity of the offence, are another key tool in the youth court's arsenal.

These sentences are designed to be age-appropriate and to foster the development and rehabilitation of young offenders, rather than simply exacting punishment in a manner similar to the way adult offenders are treated. On this point, even the Supreme Court has acknowledged an important constitutional difference between adults and juveniles for purposes of sentencing.[REF]9,10,11,14[/REF]

How Courts Scale Adult Guidelines Down for 15–17-Year-Olds

One of the most significant features of youth sentencing in England and Wales is the way in which courts scale adult sentencing guidelines down to accommodate the unique circumstances and characteristics of young offenders. Under the Sentencing Council's guidelines, courts typically start with the relevant adult guideline and then adjust the sentence based on the offender's age and maturity.

For 15- to 17-year-olds, this means that the starting point is often between half and two-thirds of what an adult would receive. However, this is by no means an automatic or mechanical approach. The guidelines specifically state that this is merely a starting point, and that the court must consider the individual circumstances of the child, including their age, maturity, and the specific factors surrounding the offence.

This discretion allows the court to tailor the sentence to the individual child, recognising that not all 16-year-olds are the same, and that the same offence committed by two different 17-year-olds may warrant different responses. This approach is a stark contrast to the more rigid, one-size-fits-all approach often found in adult sentencing.

Developmental Science: Why Adolescents Are Constitutionally Different

The reason why the youth justice system in England and Wales is so different from the adult system is rooted in the broader understanding of adolescent development and its implications for the criminal justice system. Developmental science has made it increasingly clear that adolescents are not simply "little adults," but rather individuals who are undergoing significant cognitive, emotional, and social changes.

Key examples from developmental research underscore three core attributes that distinguish adolescents from adults: immaturity, vulnerability, and changeability. Juveniles are more likely to act impetuously, are more susceptible to peer pressure, and their personalities and behaviour are more likely to change over time. These attributes mean that adolescents are less culpable for their actions and have a greater capacity for rehabilitation and growth.

Neuroscientific research further provides a biological basis for this understanding. The brain regions that regulate self-control, emotions, judgment, and impulse control (including the frontal and temporal lobes and the corpus callosum) do not fully mature until around age 18. This means that even a 17-year-old who has committed a serious crime is still in the midst of crucial brain development, with significant growth and change still to come.

This understanding has been reflected in a number of legal developments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. The court recognised that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing, and that this difference means that the criminal justice system must treat them differently.

While this case was decided in the context of the US legal system, it illustrates a broader consensus that is reflected in the English and Welsh youth justice system as well. The recognition of the unique attributes of adolescence, and the resulting need for a different approach to youth sentencing, is a key factor in the way that even 16- and 17-year-olds are treated differently from adults.[REF]10,11,9[/REF]

Minimum Sentences and Serious Crime: The Special Case of 16–17-Year-Olds

While the general approach of the English and Welsh youth justice system is to scale down adult sentences and place a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, there are some situations in which the system does impose minimum sentences for very serious offences. However, these are limited and subject to careful navigating.

For 16- and 17-year-olds, minimum sentences apply to a small number of offences, including firearms offences and threatening or possessing an offensive weapon or bladed article on a second offence. However, even in these cases, the minimum sentence is not automatic. The court has the discretion to depart from the minimum in exceptional circumstances, reflecting the system's ongoing commitment to treating each young person as an individual.

Furthermore, for particularly serious offences, such as murder, parliament has set a 12-year starting point for the minimum term of a custodial sentence. Again, this is different from an adult minimum, and it is designed to take into account the unique attributes of the young offender and their potential for rehabilitation.

These minimum sentences are the exception rather than the rule, and they still operate within the framework of the youth justice system. Even when imposing a minimum sentence, the court must still consider the individual circumstances of the young person and tailor the sentence to their needs and the aims of rehabilitation and welfare.

International Constitutional Signals: From Miller v. Alabama to UK Practice

While the English and Welsh youth justice system operates within its own specific legal and constitutional framework, it is also influenced by broader international developments in the area of adolescent development and criminal justice.

One of the most influential cases in this area is Miller v. Alabama, a 2012 decision by the US Supreme Court. In this case, the court held that the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. The court's reasoning was based on the recognition that children are less culpable and more capable of change than adults, and that the criminal justice system must reflect this difference.

The Miller decision was significant because it reflected a constitutional understanding of the special status of juveniles in the criminal justice system. While not directly binding on the English and Welsh courts, the reasoning in Miller sits comfortably with the approach taken in the English and Welsh youth justice system.

The reasoning in Miller, which was informed by the latest science on adolescent development, aligns with the principles that underpin the English and Welsh system. The emphasis on the diminished culpability of adolescents, their greater capacity for change, and the need for a more nuanced, individualised approach to sentencing is reflected in both systems.

This broader constitutional and developmental understanding has also been reflected in other international developments, including the work of the American Psychological Association, which has emphasised the key attributes of adolescence (immaturity, vulnerability, and changeability) and their implications for sentencing.[REF]9,10,11,14[/REF]

Why 16- and 17-Year-Olds Are Treated Differently from Adults

The sentencing of child offenders, even those as old as 16 and 17, reflects a carefully considered and evidence-based approach that prioritises rehabilitation and recognises the unique developmental needs of adolescents.

This approach, which scales down adult sentences, imposes minimum terms only in limited circumstances, and tailors sanctions to individual circumstances, is underpinned by a clear understanding of adolescent development.

The scientific evidence, which shows that the brains of young people are still in the process of development, and the resulting limitations in their judgment, impulse control, and capacity for change, provides a clear basis for a different approach.

The English and Welsh youth justice system, with its emphasis on rehabilitation, welfare, and the use of custody as a measure of last resort, aligns with the broader constitutional and developmental consensus that adolescents are distinct from adults and require a tailored approach.

Even though the approach can be counterintuitive to the average person, the guidelines reflect a carefully considered methodology that seeks to balance the needs of public safety with the goal of rehabilitating young offenders and promoting their development and integration into society.

Ultimately, whether we are parents, professionals, or merely tax-payers, we benefit from a system aimed at rehabilitating as many youths within a limited number of years as possible. Selfishly, locking up kids with inhumane adult sentences boomerangs when they come out more dangerous. Creating a social safety net that works stretches every pound spent on the youth justice system, and is better for everyone.