Argentina has lowered the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 14 under a new juvenile justice reform enacted by decree and signed by President Javier Milei, a move that marks a significant shift in how minors are prosecuted and has sparked debate among legal experts, rights advocates and Christian leaders.
The measure, published in the Official Gazette, allows adolescents ages 14 and 15 to face criminal proceedings for certain offenses, including serious crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and violent robbery. While the law maintains a separate system for minors distinct from adult courts, it introduces sentences of up to 15 years and raises broader questions about prevention, social reintegration and the role of punitive measures in addressing youth crime.
The debate over the age of criminal responsibility is not new in the region. In Latin America, countries such as Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela set criminal responsibility at age 14. In other cases, such as Brazil, Ecuador and Panama, the age is set at 12, according to regional comparisons cited in reports on the issue.
The law has drawn mixed reactions within the legal community. Diario Cristiano, Christian Daily International's Spanish edition, consulted several Christian lawyers from different backgrounds about the issue.
Carlota López, a lawyer with the legal network of the Christian Alliance of Evangelical Churches of the Argentine Republic (ACIERA), personally believes the reform represents a regulatory update.
“I believe the new juvenile criminal regime is a legal step forward, since the law that was repealed dated from 1981 and had become completely obsolete. The new law aligns the age of criminal responsibility with international standards and incorporates legal innovations, such as the participation of victims in criminal proceedings, alternative measures that do not involve incarceration and criminal mediation,” she said.
The attorney clarified that the system remains specific to minors.
“Let’s remember that this is a juvenile criminal regime that applies to minors ages 14 to 18. It is a special system that in no way equates them with adults,” she said.
However, López warned that the law alone will not solve the problem of juvenile crime.
“As a legal professional, I am well aware that no law by itself can change reality. Socioeconomic and family conditions must exist so that young people can focus on studying, playing sports and staying away from addictions and crime,” she said.
In that sense, she argued that prevention must also involve different social actors.
“There are alternatives related to prevention and the active participation of civil society organizations and Christian institutions. We are aware that a strictly punitive approach has not produced results,” she said.
From another legal perspective, attorney Gustavo Rosciano, an official with the Public Defender’s Office of the province of Buenos Aires, said the reduction in the age of criminal responsibility responds to public concern.
“Lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 is perhaps a drastic but necessary measure, given society’s concerns. Before this law, young people ages 14 and 15 could not be subject to criminal proceedings,” he said.
Rosciano emphasized that the juvenile regime does not mean sending minors to regular prisons.
“It is not about putting 14- to 17-year-olds in prison, but about allowing them to go through a judicial process in which their innocence or guilt can be determined. The measures are carried out in facilities designated for this purpose,” he said.
However, he warned about structural problems within the system.
“Specialized institutions suffer from budget deterioration and do not fully fulfill the purpose established by law regarding social reintegration, education and family integration. If more young people are prosecuted, the problem could become even greater,” he said.
Attorney Rosana Parrella also said the reform should be analyzed within the current social context.
“It makes sense to legislate according to today’s realities. Today, minors commit crimes just like adults, and that situation cannot be ignored,” she said.
Nevertheless, she indicated that the real impact of the law will only become clear over time.
“On its own, the application of this law would not be enough, but accompanied by other measures it certainly could be,” she said.
Parrella emphasized the importance of focusing on social development.
“Change can come through education, values formation, support systems and employment opportunities. Criminal responsibility alone may ease the situation, but it will not transform it,” she said.
Attorney Analía Celada expressed a more critical view regarding the scope of the reform. According to her, the measure responds to public demand amid rising crime but does not address deeper causes.
“I understand that the enactment of this law responds to a demand from part of society that wanted something done to stop the rise in crime, especially where offenders’ young age has been used to minimize penalties,” she said.
However, she argued that the main problem lies in criminal structures.
“The 14-year-old is the weakest link in the chain. The big fish are not caught. There is a pyramidal criminal network in which the main perpetrators often remain out of focus,” she said.
Celada also stressed the need for more comprehensive policies.
“There are other alternatives that require commitment from all levels of government, from work in vulnerable neighborhoods to interventions in schools and thorough analysis of each case,” she said.
Debate over the new juvenile criminal regime remains ongoing in legal and political circles. While some specialists believe the reform updates outdated legislation and reflects current social realities, others warn that the central challenge remains preventing crime and effectively reintegrating young people into society.
Attorney Eduardo Oviedo also analyzed the reform and described it as “good and timely,” saying it responds to public concern over the increase in crimes committed by minors.
“Society needed a measure like this, given the number of crimes committed by minors and the legal gap that existed on this issue,” he said.
The attorney recalled that the age of criminal responsibility in Argentina has changed several times throughout history. The Criminal Code of 1921 established non-criminal responsibility until age 14, while a 1954 law raised the limit to 16. During Argentina’s 1976 military dictatorship it was again set at 14, and later the 1980 juvenile criminal regime set it once more at 16, a limit that remained until the current reform.
For Oviedo, the inability to prosecute minors under 16 often led to criminal organizations exploiting adolescents.
“The impossibility of prosecuting a minor under 16 turned these youths into victims themselves, since they have been used to commit crimes, sometimes knowingly and sometimes without understanding the consequences,” he said.
However, he insisted that the main problem remains the lack of social reintegration programs.
“Minors who enter detention centers do not find a real framework for social reintegration, which often condemns them to a life of crime,” he said.
Analyzing the impact of the reform, the lawyer said the measure has contradictory effects.
“In my view, it helps society but harms the individual who begins committing crimes at such a young age. Victims needed a change, but minors also deserve hope for social reintegration, which today is practically nonexistent,” he said.
Regarding possible alternatives, Oviedo said the focus should be on how young people are treated within the juvenile justice system.
“Allocating resources to create social reintegration communities for minors who commit crimes is essential. The challenge is to reintegrate them during their time in custody rather than allowing them to remain trapped in cycles of crime,” he concluded.
Originally published by Diario Cristiano, Christian Daily International's Spanish edition.
