By Aaron H. L. Wong

In 2021, China amended its law on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), lowering the MACRof two specified offences to twelve years. As a result,China now has three different levels of MACR for dif-ferent offences. Based on the position in China, thisarticle argues that while lowering the MACR against the international trend can be justified as a necessary measure to tackle serious crimes committed by chil-dren, creating different levels of MACR based on the types of crime is wrong in principle. This article fur-ther considers the classic dilemma in setting an absoluteMACR, which results in either freeing the guilty or convicting the innocent. It is argued that setting a relatively low MACR accompanied by robust safeguards of doli incapax, child immaturity defence, diversion and wider sentencing options would allow a better assessment of children'sculpabilityandbetterservetheinterestsofjus-tice. It is also suggested that lowering the MACR will not unjustifiably undermine children’s rights if the juvenile justice system could ensure only those truly culpable could be convicted and that the option of prosecution is reserved as a last resort.

Howard Journal of Crime & Justice, Pages: 3-21 | First Published: 2024