Do minors believe they are immune from punishment when they commit crimes?

Recent research published through the U.S. National Institute of Justice also found that perceived punishment severity had a deterrent effect, but that formal penal sanctions showed a weaker relationship with later juvenile offending than perceived certainty of punishment and informal consequences such as reactions from parents, peers and educational institutions.

This helps explain why the idea of "immunity" can sometimes emerge among young offenders.

A minor may not literally believe that the law does not apply to them. Instead, they may believe that the consequences will be relatively minor, that they will not be caught, that adults will protect them, or that the justice system will treat them leniently.

Those are very different beliefs from believing oneself to be completely above the law.

There is also an important difference between a calculated decision and an impulsive one.

An adolescent involved in a planned offence may think about the possibility of arrest and still decide to proceed. Another may act during a confrontation without adequately considering what will happen afterwards. The developmental literature shows that adolescents can be particularly influenced by immediate rewards and emotionally charged circumstances.

Peer influence can make this even more significant.

For some adolescents, social approval can carry considerable weight. A young person may take part in an offence because refusing could mean losing status among friends or because the group normalizes behaviour that would otherwise appear unacceptable. In such circumstances, the decision is not necessarily based on a careful calculation of criminal law.

This is why asking whether minors "know they will not be punished" may be the wrong question.

A more useful question is: How do young people perceive the likelihood, speed and consequences of punishment before they offend?

That question shifts the discussion from simply demanding harsher sentences to understanding what actually influences behaviour.

Nepal's juvenile justice system provides another important context for this debate. Under Nepal's National Penal Code, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10. Children below 18 receive special juvenile justice protections under the Act Relating to Children, 2018. UNICEF has noted that Nepal's minimum age of criminal responsibility remains low by international standards and has been advocating for it to be raised from 10 to 12.

At the same time, being treated differently from an adult does not mean that a child faces no legal consequences.

Nepal's child justice framework is intended to balance accountability with the child's development, rehabilitation and best interests. UNICEF describes Nepal's first Children's Court, established in Bhaktapur in 2025, as an important step towards a more child-friendly justice system. The court handles cases involving children from four districts.

That distinction is particularly important when serious crimes are involved.

Public anger following an offence committed by a minor can easily turn into the belief that children are exploiting juvenile protections. But child-friendly justice does not mean consequence-free justice. It means that accountability is approached differently because children are still developing and have greater potential for behavioural change.

Research supports the importance of that distinction. Studies of adolescent offenders indicate that developmental maturity can affect how young people respond to perceived risks and costs associated with offending. When those risks are salient, offending can decrease, but the effect varies among individuals.

There is therefore no single psychological explanation for juvenile crime.

Some young offenders may underestimate punishment. Some may know exactly what the consequences could be but believe they will not be caught. Others may understand the consequences but act impulsively. Some may be influenced heavily by peers or adults. And some may be responding to difficult environments, trauma, exploitation or other circumstances.

Treating all juvenile offenders as calculating criminals who deliberately exploit the law risks overlooking these differences.

At the same time, treating minors as incapable of understanding consequences can also be dangerous. Young people need accountability, boundaries and an understanding that actions have consequences. The challenge is to provide those lessons without assuming that adult-style punishment is always the most effective way to prevent future offending.

The evidence increasingly points toward a more nuanced approach: increasing the certainty and effectiveness of detection, strengthening family and community supervision, addressing risk factors early, improving rehabilitation and ensuring that young people understand the consequences of their behaviour.

The question, then, is not simply whether minors think they are immune from punishment.

Some probably do underestimate the risks. Some may perceive themselves as unlikely to be caught. Others may act without giving punishment enough weight at the time of the offence.

But there is little basis for concluding that minors as a group believe they are above the law.

The more important issue is whether the justice system, families, schools and communities can make consequences understandable, credible and timely while also addressing the developmental and social factors that contribute to offending.

A young person should know that being a minor does not mean being free to commit crimes.

But society must also recognize that a minor is not simply a smaller version of an adult offender.

That balance—accountability without abandoning rehabilitation—is at the heart of effective juvenile justice.