Young adult sentencing: age alone does not decide

The age on the date of commission opens the legal question

Article 77c of the Criminal Code relates to someone who was eighteen at the time of the criminal offense, but not yet twenty-three. That is a limit for the legal possibility. The date on which a person is arrested, his birthday during the investigation or his age at the hearing should not be used unnoticed as a different age of adoption. Therefore, if there are multiple accusations, make it clear per fact which period is being accused and how old the suspect was at the time.

Determining the age does not yet decide which sanction system will be applied. For young adults, adult criminal law remains the starting point. The judge may deviate according to the legal standard. Rechtspraak's explanation of adolescent criminal law also makes the difference visible with sixteen and seventeen year olds, for whom a different starting point applies. Don't put both groups under one blanket rule for everyone under twenty-three. The age category provides access to an assessment, not a predetermined outcome. (explanation of Rechtspraak about adolescent criminal law)

Describe functioning instead of just a label

A substantive assessment requires more than the statement that someone is young for their age. Describe where the suspect functions independently and where guidance is needed. Think of planning, overseeing the consequences, dealing with peer pressure, daily administration and keeping appointments. An independent-looking job does not rule out a limitation in another area. Conversely, living at home does not automatically prove that someone is eligible for a youth framework. The concrete functional information makes the assessment less dependent on superficial impressions.

Ask who can substantiate the information and about what period that person knows something. A counselor can describe a pattern over months, while a family member mainly sees recent tension. Both perspectives can be useful if their boundaries remain visible. Also distinguish between a diagnosis and its meaning for daily functioning. The diagnosis alone does not automatically indicate which criminal law approach is appropriate. A lawyer can formulate the research question more clearly when the problems and strengths are described in verifiable examples.

The Public Prosecution Service has had a new policy framework since October 2026

The Juvenile Criminal Law Instruction 2026A002 has been in effect since October 1, 2026. It describes, among other things, early assessment of the question of whether research into the application of juvenile criminal law is necessary in young adults. The Public Prosecution Service mentions signals such as limitations in self-reliance, suggestibility and difficulties in development towards adulthood. This is prosecution policy within the legal framework; the designation does not make an individual judicial decision superfluous. Therefore, use the current scheme when preparing and not automatically an older scheme.

The practical value of early detection is that research can take place before a punishment proposal has been fully formulated. An initial picture can be supplemented with advice and existing reliable information. Ask the lawyer whether the development question has been explicitly discussed and what research is requested, if necessary. This does not require any preconceived recognition of debt. A personality or advice question and the contestation of an accusation can coexist. Make sure it is clearly explained what is recorded in conversations and how information can be used in the criminal case.

An instrument supports a judgment, but does not adopt it

The NIFP publishes the ASR Weighting Instruments Guide, with tools for professionals who assess or advise on the application. The presence of an instrument can be tempting to enter a score yourself and present the outcome as a right to juvenile justice. That goes too far. It concerns professional interpretation of sources, functioning and coherence. Ask what information has been used and how a conclusion is substantiated, without expecting a checklist to bind the judge. (ASR Weighting Instruments Manual)

A useful preparation also makes conflicting data visible. Someone can act impulsively under pressure but perform tasks well in a different environment. A school report may be outdated, while a recent supervisor sees improvement. Discuss whether the report identifies these differences and whether the advice remains verifiable. A conclusion is not strengthened by omitting every unfavorable fact. The defense can respond more specifically to a report when factual inaccuracies, differences in interpretation and missing research are kept apart.

Ask about the appropriate framework and the implementation options

The probation service describes its advisory role in judicial decisions. In adolescent criminal law, it is useful that advice not only expresses a preference, but also explains which approach can serve the intended purpose. What guidance is needed, who can provide it and how does it fit in with development and risks? A general reference to more pedagogy provides little guidance if it remains unclear how the young adult can benefit from this in practice. (probation describes its advisory role)

Therefore, map existing treatment, work, training and housing support. A proposal can become unfeasible due to a waiting list, a missing spot or conflicting agreements. That is no reason to skip the development question, but it is a reason to seriously investigate feasibility. Also ask what options exist in an adult framework and why a youth framework would be more or less appropriate. A substantive comparison is stronger than just the assumption that juvenile law always produces the most favorable or lightest response.

A statement shows why substantiation remains necessary

In HR June 17, 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:888, a complaint was made about, among other things, the non-application of Article 77c. The Supreme Court upheld that court's ruling. Within the described consideration, significance could also be given to the seriousness of the offense and to the age at trial in connection with the purpose of juvenile justice. The case illustrates that the legal age range and the substantive assessment are different steps.

The judgment does not provide a general rule that a suspect who is older than twenty-three at the time of the hearing can never again fall under Article 77c. Nor does it list the circumstances that should be decisive in each case. Read the conclusion in connection with the concrete motivation. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence in the same case due to term issues; that was not a grant of the juvenile justice request. Anyone who quotes a statement must keep those different parts apart.

A young adult remains their own participant in the process

Parents or other loved ones can provide valuable information about development and daily support. But someone eighteen or older has their own position and their own defense. A parent who automatically takes over all conversations can make important information about the suspect invisible. Discuss how the young adult receives explanations that he understands and how those involved can help without taking over the substantive process choices. If necessary, request appropriate communication or a separate discussion with the attorney.

The possibility of a juvenile sanction does not automatically change every procedural rule into a juvenile rule. Therefore, do not make general promises about parental presence, publicity or other procedural guarantees without checking the applicable regulations. The government information on punishments for young people provides a general overview, while the lawyer must explain the concrete procedure. An appropriate approach also means that the young adult is not reduced to a child or solely to a problem diagnosis. Your own voice and reliable support can coexist. (government information about punishment for young people)

Fictional example: a job does not say everything about self-reliance

In a fictional example, Sem is twenty on the date of the committal and works in a warehouse three days a week. He can perform the regular tasks well, but his supervisor helps with planning, financial matters and understanding letters. Sem is highly impressionable in a group of friends. An initial file note mentions working alone and independently. The lawyer therefore asks whether the actual functioning should be investigated more fully. The job is not denied, but is placed next to other data.

A specific explanation shows what help actually exists, what problems arise with your own decisions and where Sem functions stably. An expert or the probation service can assess that information. The example does not predict the application of juvenile justice; a few development issues is no automatic access code. It shows why an abstract label can narrow the consideration. Substantiated advice must be able to explain how the relevant properties relate to the question of which sanction and guidance framework is substantively appropriate.

A research card for defense and advisor

Formulate in advance a limited set of questions that really require answers. In this way, a report can be assessed not only on the closing sentence, but also on sources and reasoning. Do not ask a desired outcome as a research question. The assignment or explanation must leave room for a conclusion that does not correspond to your own preference. Reliable information helps both with a request for an application and with understanding a reasoned rejection thereof.

• Age: which date or period applies to each offense and how old was the suspect?
• Functioning: which concrete strengths and limitations have been identified?
• Development: what was going on then, what has changed now and who can explain that?
• Sources: current reports, reliable observations and missing information.
• Approach: what purpose does a youth framework serve in this individual situation?
• Implementation: available guidance, starting time, place of residence and existing obligations.
• Defense: What factual errors, research questions, or differences in interpretation should be discussed?

An appropriate system requires a reasoned choice

Our conclusion: adolescent criminal law is a substantive assessment of the suspect and the circumstances, within clear age rules. Appealing to a still developing brain can make the question understandable, but it does not replace individual research. Make the actual situation visible at an early stage and discuss with the lawyer whether additional advice is necessary. A concrete story about functioning, possibilities and limitations offers more guidance than a general wish for a lower sentence as a young person.

Also keep separating the different decisions. A question about placement during pre-trial detention is not the same final decision as the choice when sentencing. An advice for help does not decide on evidence, and a conviction does not mean that every proposed course of action without supervision is appropriate. Use the main guide to juvenile criminal law for the broader system and the explanation about an expert in the criminal case when the substantiation raises specialist questions. Good preparation makes the choice verifiable, without having to complete the judicial assessment in advance.