Criminal majority: Brazil has already provided for punishment for children aged 7 and over; see history The Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) of the Chamber of Deputies approved this Wednesday (10) a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) that reduces the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 years old. The debate spans the history of Brazilian legislation. The age for criminal liability has varied significantly throughout the country's history, being set at just seven years during the colonial period and has gone through different models, between more punitive and more protective. See the history: Juvenile offenders comment on the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility Glauco Araújo/G1 Brazil Colony: punishment from the age of 7 In 1808, with the arrival of Dom João VI in Brazil and the validity of the Philippine Ordinances, criminal imputability began at the age of seven, based on Canon Law, according to which the so-called "age of reason" was reached at this stage of life. Children and adolescents between the ages of 7 and 17 could not be sentenced to the death penalty, but were subject to other punishments and were kept in the same prisons as adults. Young people between 17 and 20 years old could have their sentences reduced by up to a third. In the Philippine Ordinances, people between the ages of seven and seventeen were not sentenced to the death penalty but could suffer other punishments. Reproduction 1830: Discernment system in the Empire The Empire's Penal Code of 1830 changed the rules by adopting the so-called discernment system: The absolute age of criminal responsibility was now set at 14 years of age. However, children over the age of eight could be held criminally responsible if the judge found that they had acted knowingly. In extreme cases, the punishment could reach up to life imprisonment. Children under 17 were sent to houses of correction (prisons where the punishment was labor). Excerpt from the Criminal Code of the Empire (1830). Reproduction 1890: reduction and subjectivity in the Republic With the Republican Penal Code of 1890, absolute imputability became valid until the age of 9. Between the ages of 9 and 14, it was once again up to the judge to evaluate the young person's judgment to decide on the punishment. "Art. 30. Those over 9 years of age and under 14, who have acted with discernment, will be detained in industrial disciplinary establishments, for as long as the judge decides, as long as the imprisonment does not exceed the age of 17." 1921: First specific laws for minors In a report published in 1920, judge Nabucco de Abreu defended the creation of a "Juvenile Court" in Brazil, arguing that the legislation at the time was insufficient to deal with the specificities of childhood and adolescence. At the time, the topic was already covered by the press with data and statistics on the imprisonment of children and adolescents. In 1920, infractions attributed to children and adolescents were already highlighted in the news Kayan Albertin - Art/g1 In 1921, Budget Law No. 4,242 represented an advance in the legal treatment of minors. The legislation introduced concepts such as abandonment and loss of parental power — today called destitution of family power, a judicial measure that removes rights and duties related to their children from parents. Furthermore, it determined that minors under the age of 14 "will not be subjected to criminal proceedings of any kind." Excerpt from the Budget Law of 1921 Reproduction/Federal Senate A few years later, in 1927, the first Minors Code in Latin America abandoned the purely punitive logic and began to prioritize regeneration and education. The age of criminal irresponsibility was raised to 14 years. 1940 to today The 1940 Penal Code represented a decisive change in Brazilian legislation by adopting the biological system, in force to this day. From then on, minors under the age of 18 began to be considered criminally unaccountable, under the understanding that they are still in a phase of physical, mental and emotional development. In 1969, during the military regime, there was an attempt to reverse this understanding through Decree-Law No. 1,004, which proposed a return to the biopsychological criterion. Under the new rule, teenagers between the ages of 16 and 18 could be held criminally responsible if it was proven that they had sufficient discernment to understand the illicit nature of their acts. The change, however, never produced practical effects and was revoked in 1978. From the doctrine of irregular situation to full protection The 1979 Minors Code adopted the so-called Irregular Situation Doctrine, according to which the State should intervene in children and adolescents considered to be in a situation of abandonment, need, risk or involved in criminal acts. The legislation was predominantly welfare and protective in nature, aimed at children under 18 years of age who fell under these conditions. With the Federal Constitution of 1988, criminal liability for minors under 18 was consolidated in article 228, determining that teenagers are subject to special legislation. Two years later, in 1990, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA) replaced the old Minors Code and implemented full protection. The ECA defines a child as a person under the age of 12 and a teenager as anyone aged between 12 and 18. Instead of common sentences, the legislation provides for socio-educational measures, such as warning, assisted release and hospitalization. READ MORE Brazil has 11.5 thousand teenagers in socio-educational measures; CCJ resumes debate on reducing the age of criminal responsibility For Rafael Cardozo, judge of the Court of Justice of Pernambuco and president of the National Forum for Juvenile Justice (FONAJUV), the current rules for holding children and adolescents who commit infractions accountable are a reference, and not a "relaxation of the State's response". "In fact, what happened was a paradigm shift. The teenager, the one who was 12 years old and 18 years old, became a subject of rights and was recognized as a developing person." According to the judge, accountability needs to exist, but in a way that is compatible with the condition of a developing person. "It's not a choice between punishing or protecting. In fact, the socio-educational system was designed to hold teenagers responsible, while protecting them", explains Cardozo. According to Mariana Araújo, coordinator of the Center for the Defense of Children and Adolescents of Ceará (CEDEC) and representative of the Coalition for Socioeducation, the promulgation of the Constitution of 88 and the creation of the ECA, under the influence of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 89, provide "answers to the history of violations that children and adolescents have suffered over the years". Mariana points out that these milestones defined that children and adolescents must have full protection from society, family and the State. "From this perspective, article 227 of the Constitution and 228 establish that the population aged 12 to 18 must have another type of treatment for committing an infraction. Therefore, it establishes another system of accountability."