By Sara Lehtiniemi
Several Nordic countries want to impose harsher consequences on young criminal offenders. The emergence of this “punitive turn” in the Nordic welfare states mirrors a trend that has long been characteristic of Anglo-American contexts. Across the Nordics, this shift from welfare-oriented policies to security-driven strategies has been criticized.
In Finland, violent offenses among youth under the age of 21 have increased, particularly among those younger than 15 – a trend observed more widely in the Nordics. Moreover, a fear of “following the Swedish path” regarding gang criminality has become apparent in Finland’s public discussions. These factors have led the Finnish government to carefully examine legislation to determine whether teenagers under 15-years-old could be arrested. This examination is part of the government’s 2024-2027 Action Plan, which aims to develop ways to combat and prevent youth and gang violence. However, particularly the plan to lower the age of criminal responsibility raises many questions, as research consistently shows that making the criminal system more punitive is ineffective and even counterproductive in preventing youth from engaging in criminal behavior. By examining current policy developments, this article argues that Nordic countries should not decrease the age of criminal responsibility.
Many experts do not support criminal sentences to children under the age of 15 because psychosocial research suggests that individuals younger than 15 do not yet fully understand the consequences of their actions. For example, a Finnish youth-work director stated that “whether the sentence is two or four years does not hold any significance for a teenager” who “lives in a moment, emotion and situation”. Yet, many experts in the Nordics support the general idea of increasing youths’ liability for crimes they commit.
The Finnish Action Plan is also meant to create preventive measures to halt youth violence through social measures. Nevertheless, it is not easy as the resources are scarce in the country. At a time of economic downturn, the Finnish government has proposed cuts of 100 million euros to social welfare services. The review for cutting possibilities ultimately identified social welfare services worth 50 million euros for cuts. The organizations who are hit by these cuts do a great share of the preventative work with vulnerable youth. The Finnish Minister of Justice Leena Meri admitted the controversy of battling youth and gang crime as simultaneously cutting social welfare.
In turn, Sweden’s equivalent program is called “Barriärer mot brott”. A particularly alarming feature of the country’s youth violence is the young peoples’ easy access to firearms, which links to a wider issue with increased organized crime and illegal sale of narcotics. Sweden’s current government came to power in 2022, vowing to fight organized crime, and subsequently indicated a willingness to lower the age of criminal liability to 13 in cases of serious crimes such as murder, aggravated bombings, and aggravated rapes. The proposal came as part of the government’s broader attempt to “help children leave the criminal path” and to “strengthen victims’ rights” and ensure “protection of society”. On the contrary, these suggestions may even conflict with children’s rights principles. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has encouraged states to maintain relatively high minimum ages of criminal responsibility and to favour rehabilitative approaches.
Furthermore, Denmark introduced the Youth Crime Act in 2019 as part of the government’s more punitive-style approach. However, research on the Danish policy indicated that lowering the age of criminal liability did not reduce offences among 14-year-olds. Instead, reported crime increased during the reform by 15 % among 14-years-olds, especially among children with previous offending records. Additionally, researchers highlighted how the educational results of these children dropped. Lastly, the study could not find evidence that criminal offences would be “pushed down” as often argued in political discussions, to juveniles below the minimum age of criminal responsibility.
Although most of the youth (for example 96 % in Finland) are not involved in violent crime, the rest tend to offend more frequently, which worries experts. It is important to recognize that this is also a question of child exploitation. Data shows that Swedish children have been recruited to commit violent gang-related crimes in Denmark, Norway, and there are indications that this is taking place in Finland and Iceland too. In 2025 more than 50 children under age of 15 faced criminal proceedings because of suspected murder or attempted murder in Sweden. If a person under 18 is coerced into serious offending for the purpose of exploitation, this can be defined as human trafficking under international law. However, this perspective is rarely applied in the Nordics. Research from Norway shows that young people involved in selling drugs or other criminal activities are typically viewed as simply offenders rather than also as potential victims of criminal exploitation at the same time. Similarly, in Sweden, courts set a high threshold for recognizing trafficking in cases of criminal exploitation of children. In Finland, the police seldom investigate all the underlying factors behind a young person’s criminal behavior.
Understanding the life circumstances of young people who offend does not diminish the seriousness of their actions, but it is essential for developing effective responses, as many have previously experienced abuse, neglect, exploitation, or even honor-related violence. Historically, Nordic crime control was grounded in addressing the social causes of crime, but later there has been a gradual shift toward more punitive approaches. Discourse has become to emphasize public safety above all. Yet, research shows that those suspected of serious violent crimes often face multiple social challenges, such as criminal behavior in the family, substance abuse problems, and a weak socio-economic status. They also have a wider range of related crimes and longer criminal histories, which indicates that criminal behavior is more deeply rooted. The combination of vulnerability and unmet needs can make criminal networks particularly appealing, as they appear to offer status, a sense of belonging, and financial security. Youth offending is shaped by impulsivity, peer pressure, and limited risk awareness. All these factors demonstrate how this phenomenon requires special social and judicial attention.
Addressing youth gang involvement requires tackling structural marginalization. Criminal law measures alone are insufficient if “parallel societies” characterized by social exclusion develop, where people have weak connections to public institutions, and limited access to employment and other legitimate opportunities to participate in society. In those circumstances criminal networks become an attractive alternative source of income and belonging. In Finland, experts recommend expanding the use of conciliation and a youth sanction (nuorisorangaistus), a 4- to 12-month sanction for 15-to 17-year-olds that combines supervision, support, and tasks that promote social functioning. The severity of this punishment equals conditional imprisonment. Moreover, lessons could be drawn from the flexible approaches adopted in Estonia’s 2018 new law reform, where authorities are allowed to intervene in the situation of a young offender more flexibly, make greater use of verbal warnings, and discontinue criminal investigations in favor of conciliation or other appropriate measures.
In conclusion, recent developments across the Nordic countries demonstrate a growing tension between punitive responses and welfare-based approaches to youth crime. In Finland this is evident at the overlapping implementation of the country’s Action Plan and the extensive cuts on social welfare services. While political agendas, shifting security discourses and changing institutional priorities – such as emphasis on public safety and rapid intervention have pushed governments toward stricter measures, the evidence does not convincingly support lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Although Sweden’s government has now dropped its intention to lower the age of criminal responsibility to offenders as young as 13 in special prison units, the government will instead plan a new legislation with a lower age of criminal responsibility at 14. Sweden’s decision highlights both the resistance to and persistence of the punitive shift when it comes to youth crime. Juvenile delinquency remains a serious challenge that demands effective responses. Yet, this article has provided arguments demonstrating that the most promising solutions do not lie in expanding punitive measures through criminal sentences for children under the age of 15.
Edited by: Aiyana Vittoria Amplatz
Image credit: Unsplash