Reducing the age of criminal responsibility: dissenting opinions amid the ongoing debate
Lowering the Age of Criminal Responsibility in Argentina: Opposing Voices in a Renewed Parliamentary Debate
Argentina is once again immersed in a heated national debate over whether to lower the age of criminal responsibility. The discussion, currently taking place in the National Congress, has reignited strong political, social, and ethical divisions across the country. At the center of the controversy is a proposal promoted by the ruling party to reduce the minimum age at which minors can be held criminally responsible under the penal system.
As lawmakers deliberate, different voices from civil society and politics have expressed contrasting positions. Among them are Vivian Perrone, a representative of the advocacy group Mothers of Pain, and National Deputy Blanca Osuna, vice president of the Education Commission in Congress. Both participated in a radio interview with Radio 750, where they shared sharply differing perspectives on the issue.
The debate goes beyond a simple legal reform. It touches on broader questions about social inequality, youth violence, public safety, state responsibility, and the protection of children's rights.
Background: What Is the Age of Criminal Responsibility?
The age of criminal responsibility refers to the minimum age at which a person can be prosecuted and punished under criminal law. In Argentina, the current system establishes that minors under a certain age cannot be held criminally responsible in the same way as adults.
Supporters of lowering the age argue that increasing youth involvement in violent crimes requires stronger legal consequences. Opponents, however, warn that punitive measures alone fail to address the structural causes of juvenile delinquency and risk violating children's rights.
This debate has surfaced multiple times in Argentina’s recent political history, often resurfacing after high-profile crimes involving minors. Each time, it generates intense public discussion, revealing deep social tensions.
Vivian Perrone’s Position: Accountability with Social Support
Vivian Perrone, representing Mothers of Pain—an organization formed by relatives of crime victims—expressed support for lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Her stance reflects the frustration felt by many citizens who demand stronger responses to crimes committed by minors.
Perrone emphasized that she agrees with reducing the age threshold because she believes society cannot simply dismiss criminal acts committed by minors on the grounds that they are underage.
“I agree with the lowering of the age of responsibility because I think of those young people who go out to commit crimes and I do not agree with saying only that they are minors and have to be free,” she stated.
Her argument centers on the idea that serious crimes require consequences, regardless of the offender’s age. For victims and their families, she suggests, the fact that the perpetrator is a minor does not diminish the harm suffered.
However, Perrone’s position is not purely punitive. She also stressed the importance of accompanying any legal reform with strong social policies aimed at prevention and containment. In her view, reducing the age of criminal responsibility must go hand in hand with comprehensive measures that address the needs of vulnerable youth.
Collective Responsibility: Society’s Role in Juvenile Crime
One of Perrone’s key points was the concept of collective responsibility. She argued that when a minor commits a crime, it reflects a broader failure of the family, community, and state institutions.
“If a minor goes out to commit crimes, his family and his environment have already failed, so the whole society has to take charge,” she said.
This perspective frames juvenile crime not only as an individual issue but as a social one. According to this view, while minors should be held accountable, society must also recognize its role in creating conditions that allow youth delinquency to develop.
Perrone also raised concerns about what happens to minors once they enter the judicial system. She questioned whether Argentina has adequate facilities and programs to provide education, emotional support, and rehabilitation for adolescents in conflict with the law.
“We have to see what we have to do with the minors who are prosecuted, where they are going to receive the containment, affection and education that they did not have until now,” she explained.
This highlights a crucial element of the debate: lowering the age without strengthening rehabilitation systems could simply lead to incarceration without reform.
Blanca Osuna’s Position: Structural Causes and Child Development
On the other side of the debate stands Deputy Blanca Osuna, who acknowledged that Argentina may need to update its juvenile penal regime. However, she strongly criticized the approach proposed by the ruling party.
Osuna argued that the current proposal focuses almost exclusively on reducing the age of criminal responsibility, without incorporating broader policies that support youth development and protect children’s rights.
She warned:
“Es necesario un régimen penal juvenil, pero la propuesta que está haciendo el oficialismo se basa exclusivamente en la baja de la edad, y ahí es donde no figuran en el texto propuestas que acompañen el crecimiento que los niños requieren para plantarse en la vida.”
In English, she suggests that while a juvenile penal regime is necessary, the current project lacks measures that help children grow and develop in a way that enables them to live responsibly within society.
For Osuna, the issue is not whether to have a juvenile justice system, but how it should be designed. She believes that a punitive approach alone ignores the deeper social roots of crime.
Structural Factors Behind Juvenile Crime
Osuna emphasized that the proposal fails to address structural causes of youth delinquency, such as:
- Poverty and inequality
- Lack of access to quality education
- Family instability
- Drug addiction
- Social exclusion
- Limited employment opportunities
According to her argument, focusing only on punishment does not solve these underlying problems. Instead, it risks criminalizing poverty and marginalization.
“Este proyecto desatiende causas estructurales del delito juvenil y no contempla políticas que permitan un ejercicio pleno de derechos y el respeto de las reglas para vivir en sociedad,” she concluded.
Her statement suggests that without policies that guarantee full rights and opportunities for children, legal reform may deepen social injustice rather than reduce crime.
Political Context of the Debate
The debate takes place within a broader political climate marked by concerns about insecurity and public safety. In Argentina, crime has become a central political issue, often influencing electoral campaigns and public opinion.
The ruling party argues that lowering the age of criminal responsibility will send a strong message that crime has consequences, regardless of age. Supporters claim that it may deter minors from participating in violent acts.
Opposition sectors, however, view the proposal as a symbolic measure that responds to public anger rather than evidence-based policy. They warn that international experience shows punitive reforms do not necessarily reduce juvenile crime rates.
The discussion in Congress reflects these divisions, with lawmakers debating legal details, human rights considerations, and social policy implications.
Human Rights Perspective
International conventions, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—of which Argentina is a signatory—establish principles for juvenile justice systems.
These principles emphasize:
- Rehabilitation over punishment
- Deprivation of liberty as a last resort
- Special protection for minors
- The best interests of the child
Critics of lowering the age argue that stricter penal measures could conflict with these principles if not carefully designed.
Supporters counter that protecting society and victims’ rights must also be considered, and that accountability can coexist with rehabilitation.
Public Opinion and Social Tensions
The issue generates strong emotional reactions. For families affected by violent crimes, the idea that young offenders may avoid significant legal consequences can feel unjust.
On the other hand, child rights advocates warn against populist policies driven by isolated cases rather than comprehensive data.
The debate often reveals a deeper societal divide between:
- Calls for stricter law enforcement
- Demands for social reform and prevention
Both sides claim to seek safer communities, but propose different paths to achieve that goal.
Challenges Ahead
If the proposal advances in Congress, lawmakers will need to address several key questions:
- What will be the new minimum age of criminal responsibility?
- How will detention centers for minors operate?
- Will rehabilitation programs be adequately funded?
- How will the system protect minors’ rights?
- What preventive social policies will accompany the reform?
Without clear answers, the reform risks becoming controversial even after approval.
Broader Implications for Argentina
This debate is not just about criminal law; it is about the kind of society Argentina wants to build.
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility may reflect a demand for order and accountability. However, failing to address inequality and social exclusion may perpetuate cycles of violence.
The conversation also highlights tensions between:
- Security and human rights
- Punishment and prevention
- Individual responsibility and social responsibility
The positions of Vivian Perrone and Blanca Osuna symbolize these contrasting perspectives.
Conclusion
The parliamentary debate on lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Argentina has once again exposed deep divisions within society. While Vivian Perrone supports reducing the age, emphasizing accountability and collective responsibility, she also insists on the need for social support systems. Meanwhile, Deputy Blanca Osuna warns that focusing solely on punitive measures ignores structural causes and fails to promote children’s development and rights.
As Congress continues deliberations, the outcome will likely shape Argentina’s juvenile justice system for years to come. The challenge lies in balancing public safety, victims’ rights, and the protection and rehabilitation of vulnerable youth.
Ultimately, the debate forces Argentina to confront a fundamental question: how should society respond when children break the law — with punishment, prevention, or a combination of both?
