Download article

Authors: Szabó, Bernadett – Czebe, András

Title: The criminal law assessment of young adults in Hungary

Abstract: This study examines the conceptual and normative foundations for recognizing young adulthood (ages 18–24) as a distinct category in Hungarian criminal law. While current legislation treats individuals as fully responsible adults from age 18, empirical research from psychology, sociology, and criminology suggests that many young adults lack the psychosocial maturity typically associated with full adulthood. The analysis draws on national and comparative legal sources, judicial practice, and international frameworks to assess whether young adults warrant differentiated treatment in criminal justice. Findings reveal a normative gap in Hungarian law: the concept of “young adult” is inconsistently applied, lacking statutory definition and leading to judicial ambiguity. Based on legal theory, empirical criminal statistics, and comparative models, the study proposes the introduction of a formal legal definition within the Criminal Code and the inclusion of a new mitigating provision under Chapter IX. This reform would enhance legal clarity, promote proportional sentencing, and respect both judicial discretion and constitutional principles. The paper concludes that codifying young adulthood as a distinct penal category is both necessary and feasible for a more just and developmentally informed criminal justice system.

Keywords: Young adulthood, criminal justice reform, developmentally appropriate sentencing, legal capacity and maturity, age-responsive criminal law

Cite as: Szabó, B. & Czebe, A. (2024). The criminal law assessment of young adults in Hungary. Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia, 11(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.71100/STUDIA.2024.2.1

Doi: 10.71100/STUDIA.2024.2.1

References:

1. Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (CC).
2. Act CCXL of 2013 on the Enforcement of Penalties, Measures, Certain Coercive Measures
   and Detention for Misdemeanours (PEA).
3. Act XXXI of 1997 on the Protection of Children and the Administration of Guardianship (Child Protection Act).
4. Budapest-Capital Regional Court of Appeal. Judgement of April 11, 2024 (Bf. 315/2023/26).
5. Budapest-Capital Regional Court of Appeal. Judgement of February 16, 2024 (Bhar. 308/2023/20).
6. Budapest-Capital Regional Court of Appeal. Judgement of October 20, 2021 (Bf. 191/2021/9).
7. Constitutional Court of Hungary. Decision of March 20, 2002 (13/2002. (III. 20.) AB).
8. Convention on the Rights of the Child
9. Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2003)20 on new approaches to juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice. https://search.coe.int/cm#{%22CoEIdentifier%22: [%2209000016805df0b3%22],%22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22]}
10. Criminal Chamber Opinion No. 56/2007 (Bkv. 56).
11. Csúri, A. (2008). A fiatal felnőttkor, mint büntetőjogilag releváns életszakasz [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Szeged.
12. Dünkel, F. & Pruin, I. (2012). Young adult offenders in juvenile and criminal justice systems in Europe. In Lösel, F., Bottoms, A. E. & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.), Young adult offenders: Lost in transition? (pp. 11–38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203128510
13. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. W. W. Norton & Company.
14. Ligeti, K. (2006). A fiatalkorúak büntető igazságszolgáltatási törvényének koncepciója. Büntetőjogi Kodifikáció, 6(2), 21-38.
15. Lombroso, C. (1876). L’Uomo delinquente. Hoepli.
16. Ministerial Reasoning of Act XXXI of 1997 on the Protection of Children and the Administration of Guardianship (MR of Child Protection Act).
17. Molnár, J. (1996). Életkor és bűnözés [Doctoral dissertation].
18. Office of the Prosecutor General. (2024). Tájékoztató a bűnözés 2023. évi adatairól. https://ugyeszseg.hu/az-ugyeszsegrol/statisztikai-adatok/tajekoztato-a-bunozesrol/
19. Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Justice in Matters Involving Children in Conflict with the Law: Model Law on Juvenile Justice and Related Commentary. United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Justice_Matters_Involving-Web_version.pdf
20. Quenzel, G. & Hurrelmann, K. (2022). Lebensphase Jugend: Eine Einfuehrung in die sozialwissenschaftliche Jugendforschung (Vol. 14). Beltz Juventa.
21. Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures. https://search.coe.int/cm#{%22CoEIdentifier%22:[%2209000016805d2716%22],%22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22]}
22. Szigeti, P. & Takács, P. (2004). A jogállamiság jogelmélete. Napvilág.
23. The Fundamental Law of Hungary (25 April 2011)
24. Tokaji, G. (1976). Fejezetek a büntetőjog általános része köréből. JATE Soksz.
25. Tóth, M. (2017). A büntethetőségi korhatár a társadalmi elvárások tükrében, szabályozásának hazai és nemzetközi története. Belügyi Szemle, 65(2), 20-34. https://doi.org/ 10.38146/BSZ.2017.2.2
26. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules). https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/beijingrules.pdf
27. Vaskuti, A. (2016). A nemzetközi jogban megfogalmazott ajánlások érvényesülése fiatalkorúak büntető igazságszolgáltatásában [Doctoral dissertation]. Eötvös Loránd University. https://doi.org/10.15476/ELTE.2015.037
28. Vörös, E. (2009). Javaslat a fiatal felnőttek speciális csoportjának létrehozására. Börtönügyi Szemle, 28(3), 107-114.
29. WHO. (2014, October 15). Minimum age of criminal responsibility. https://gateway.euro. who.int/en/indicators/cah_20-minimum-age-of-criminal-responsibility/#id=27488
30. Zeijlmans, K., Sipma, T. & van der Laan, A. M. (2021). European Justice Systems and a Developmental Approach to Young Adults’ Incarceration. In Gomes, S., de Carvalho, M. J. L. & Duarte, V. (Eds.), Incarceration and Generation, Volume I. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82265-1_5