Juvenile Crime and Responsibility: New Regulations in Türkiye
- Esil Korkmaz
- Sep 15
- 5 min read
“Juveniles pushed to crime” is the newest topic of discussion on social media platforms, with the controversy of the Mattia Ahmet Minguzi murder and short clips of youth participating in illegal activities going viral. The debate has quickly grown beyond individual cases, raising questions about systemic failures in education, economic inequality, lack of social support, and the glamorization of violence online, all of which contribute to a broader narrative of youth turning toward crime. At the core of the term “Juveniles pushed to crime” is the view that a child can’t be considered a criminal since children can be swayed to crime as they develop a sense of self and find a place in their communities. Indeed, sociologists argue that criminal activities by minors are either specific to adolescence or the result of the conditions they are in. Therefore, unlike adults, they should be treated under different legal standards, both socially and psychologically, with special privileges afforded to them.
It is argued that there are similar risk factors for child delinquency across many countries. These factors can be divided into individual, family, school, peers, and neighborhood. However, it should be noted that cultural differences and the country in which they live play an important role in the development of juvenile criminals. For example, in Western countries, individualism is at the forefront, whereas in Turkish society, it isn’t emphasized as much, and there exists a closer bond between the child and the family. Because of this fundamental difference, it is thought that child delinquency takes on a different dimension in Türkiye. Still, there is a significant lack of prospective longitudinal studies in the country on delinquency, which may be one of the reasons behind the recent events, as a problem isn’t curable if its cause isn’t detected.
Nevertheless, with the prevalence of viral juvenile criminal news, a noticeable part of the public believes that the term shouldn’t be used to excuse the individual decisions of young people, as this only encourages criminal activity because of the lack of responsibility put on the children. They aren’t entirely wrong since dismissing all responsibility can foster a culture of impunity, as some adolescents may interpret the lack of accountability as permission to escalate their actions. An example would be Mattia’s case. Mattia was
attacked by unknown individuals in a busy street market in Kadıköy and was taken to intensive care. He was stabbed five times by 15-year-old Berkay Budak and then continued to be assaulted by 16-year-old Umutcan Baba, who kicked him while he was on the ground. The murder was carried out in a planned manner, with 14-year-old Kerim Özbağ organizing the assailants. It was reported that Mattia was declared brain dead 15 days later. The juvenile criminals were first expected to get a maximum of 15 years according to Article 31, which led them to go on social media and upload posts of themselves making fun of the murder, as well as threatening the family of the victim. However, with the persistence of Mattia’s mother, Yasemin, the criminal investigation is still ongoing, and the name of Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi is known countrywide.
From a sociological and psychological angle, adolescents are not simply “choosing crime” but reacting to structural pressure and limited opportunities, which makes public expectations both unfair and ineffective for long-term prevention. Thus, while sociology emphasizes the need to understand crime as a social product rather than an individual defect, effective approaches must still recognize personal responsibility alongside systemic reform.
As online discussions on the phrase increased, Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç revealed changes to penalties for juvenile offenders, specifically with regard to children aged 15 to 18 in Article 31 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). With the new regulation, it’s expected that the reduction rates specified in the article will be lowered, allowing for harsher penalties to be imposed on juvenile offenders. According to the Sabah newspaper, harsher penalties will be imposed on juvenile offenders with consideration of the severity of the crime, the intended purpose and motive, the manner in which the crime was committed, the criminal record of the juvenile, and no sentence reduction will be applied to children above the age of 16 at the time they commit intentional murder.
Currently, Article 31, paragraph two states that individuals aged 12 to 15 who are unable to comprehend the legal significance and consequences of their actions, or whose ability to control their behavior is deemed insufficient, cannot be held criminally responsible. However, if it is determined that they do understand the nature and consequences of their actions and are capable of directing their behavior accordingly, they may face prison sentences ranging from 12 to 15 years in cases that would otherwise warrant aggravated life imprisonment, and from 9 to 11 years in cases that would otherwise result in life imprisonment. Furthermore, the article provides a reduction by half for other sentences, with the condition that the penalty for any single act cannot exceed seven years.
In the third paragraph of Article 31 of the Turkish Penal Code, it is stated that for minors over 15 at the time of committing the offense, a prison sentence of 18 to 24 years can be given if the crime requires aggravated life imprisonment, and instead of life imprisonment, a sentence of 12 to 15 years can be imposed. It is also mentioned in the same article that there will be a one-third reduction in other penalties and that the prison sentence for each act shall not exceed 12 years.
Thus, while the article provides a significant amount of reduction in sentence length, it still seems to hold juvenile criminals relatively accountable based on their stance during the hearing, as well as their age. However, this balance remains contentious, as people argue that the assessment of a child’s comprehension and intent is highly subjective and may not fully capture the psychological complexities of adolescence, providing the main driving force behind the expected regulations.
Furthermore, there are talks about another regulation that will be made regarding the families of the children drawn into crime. In the crime defined under Article 233 of the Turkish Penal Code, which is “violation of obligations arising from family law”, a person who fails to fulfill their obligation of care, education, or support arising from family law is punished with up to 1 year of imprisonment upon complaint. With the regulation, the penalties for the crime of violation of obligations arising from family law are increased, aiming to raise socially sensitive and more harmonious children.
However, this raises legal and ethical questions, as according to the principle that individuals are responsible only for their own acts, holding parents accountable for crimes committed by their children risks overstepping into collective punishment. While it is true that inadequate family care can be a contributing factor to juvenile delinquency, the causal link is not always straightforward, and the state must be careful not to blur the line between parental negligence and direct participation in crime. Therefore, the regulation may succeed in promoting stronger parental responsibility, but it also risks clashing with foundational principles of individual accountability in criminal law.
