From the perspective of historical evidence, tighter control usually is not able to secure safe societies. International studies for example, from Denmark show that lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not have much of a deterring effect. After a trial period of a lower age limit, Denmark in fact reverted back to the original limit of 15 (Schrøder, 2017).
The criminal justice system seems misplaced to address children in conflict with the law. It could be claimed that the system and societies have already failed, if children engage in criminal activities. The communities would do right in taking back the responsibility of supporting the children. Children in conflict with the law face often multiple and complex challenges in their lives. Also, the responses to these must be cross-sectorial and individualised. Child welfare requires a multi-party approach and cooperation, also in the aftermath of serious crime. That’s why it’s imperative to map the choice of means available and to dare to think out-of-the-box.
Restorative justice has interesting prospects as to children in contact with the law, their families, and societies at large. In the absence of one-single off-the-shelf description of restorative process, it offers a wealth of opportunities in finding appropriate measures. It presents a holistic approach together with different victim support interventions as well as social- and health services involved. This way restorative justice can contribute to cohesive and democratic societies. Herein lies the potential of restorative justice. It has the potential of stepping up and developing into meaningful response with appropriate safeguards and procedural provisions in place. But herein lies also a risk.
Sometimes restorative justice is promoted as a cheap and affordable option to full scale criminal trials. It is dangerous to go this way. Even though serious crime committed by children, or by anyone, raises lively debates and strong opinions, it would be best to remain focused in the aftermath as well as in prevention of it. In particular when it comes to children, the primary question should not be formulated in terms of economic affordability. The prime focus should be in what works and what contributes the best to the child’s potential for re-integrating back to the society. Sometimes this is also the most affordable option.