South Korea weighs lowering juvenile liability age after national forum

A forum on South Korea’s juvenile justice system was held on the 18th, hosted by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family in cooperation with the Korea Youth Policy Institute. The discussion focused on the current status of the criminal liability of minors and the major issues in age-related policy questions, marking the first public debate since the launch of a Social Dialogue Consultative Body to seek societal consensus.

Professor Kim Hyuk of Pukyong National University’s Law School argued that lowering the criminal responsibility age to 13 would not be appropriate in terms of responsibility capacity. He defined criminal responsibility as the ability to judge right from wrong and to control one’s actions, noting this ability develops through social life rather than merely through information.

Kim noted the threshold for criminal liability was set in 1953, when those in the 13– to 14-year-old range were more integrated into social life. He argued that today’s 13-year-olds are still in compulsory education with limited social experience, and it remains reasonable to view them as beings in a stage of growth.

Some participants contended that the current framework can already provide a strong response. Kim pointed out that juvenile-disposition measures are not weaker than commonly thought: even 13-year-olds can be placed in a juvenile facility for up to two years, and probation can be used in tandem, offering substantial deterrence.

Data cited in the forum suggested that even among older juvenile offenders, actual punishment is relatively rare. In 2023, about 8.8% of offenders aged 15–19 who reach formal proceedings face trial, and only a small portion receive a real sentence; lowering the age to 13 could reduce those figures roughly twentyfold, meaning only a handful might be imprisoned.

Proponents of a lower threshold argued for aligning the law with evolving social norms. Professor Jeong Erom of Busan Foreign Language University emphasized that the justice system should reflect public sentiment and contemporary expectations, and that lowering the age could be warranted if it is accompanied by strengthened protective dispositions and effective rehabilitation programs.

Lawyer Song Jong-Young of the Hammin law firm suggested that a lower age could heighten parental accountability, as families may perceive misbehavior as a tangible legal issue, potentially motivating greater supervision and guidance at home.

The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family plans to evaluate the appropriate level of the juvenile-liability age based on the forum’s findings. President Lee Jae-myung had told the Cabinet last month that there is considerable support for lowering the age and asked the ministry to gather public input and decide within two months.

Why this matters beyond Korea: the debate encapsulates a critical international question—how governments balance deterrence with rehabilitation for youth. Policy directions in Korea can influence allied discussions on juvenile justice, human rights standards, and social welfare approaches. For U.S. readers, developments here can affect regional norms, business and policy risk assessments for Korea-based supply chains, and the broader framework in which multinational firms and policymakers approach youth crime, education, and family responsibility.