(Berlin) – A new Turkish law that imposes heavy prison sentences on children found guilty of committing crimes is likely to cause harm and moves Turkish policy further away from international norms, Human Rights Watch said today. The law, which went into effect on August 18, 2026, allows courts to impose prison sentences up to 27 years for children age 12 and up, and life in prison for those 15 and older.
Imposing criminal penalties on children younger than 14 and sentencing children as though they were adults violates international child rights standards. The law also directs officials to hold children in closed prisons and not in educational facilities, as is the appropriate practice for child offenders. Türkiye should instead reform its child justice system to comply with the best international standards.
“Any serious crime committed by a child deserves a serious response, but locking up children for decades is neither just nor effective, and can be harmful and potentially counterproductive,” said Bill Van Esveld, associate children’s rights director at Human Rights Watch. “Child justice standards are grounded in science that establishes that children have the ability to grow and reform, so they should not be punished like adults.”
The Turkish government promoted harsher penalties for children after the fatal stabbing of a 14-year-old boy, Mattia Ahmet Minguizzi, in January 2025. Two boys, ages 15 and 16, were each sentenced to 24 years for the killing, at that time the maximum sentence. But politicians contended that increased prison terms were needed to deter children from crime.
The new law amends the previous maximum sentences for children ages 15 to 17, which under the penal code were 24 years for the most serious offences such as “premeditated intentional killing,” 15 years for “intentional killing,” and 12 years for certain other crimes. The revised law allows courts to sentence children in this age group to life in prison, as if they were adults, depending on their intent, motive, the manner in which the offense was committed, and previous convictions.
For a child between the ages of 12 and 14, if a court determines that they are incapable of “understanding the legal meaning and consequences of the act and of controlling their behavior in relation to the act,” the child is not criminally responsible, and the court may impose “security measures specifically designed for children.” However, if the child is deemed criminally responsible, the revised law allows courts to sentence children in this age group to up to 27 years for intentional killing and other serious crimes, depending on their intent, motive, and the manner in which they committed the offense.
Under Türkiye’s penal code, life sentences “last for the convict’s entire life.” A child sentenced to life may apply for conditional release after 24 years at the earliest, while children sentenced to “aggravated life imprisonment” may only apply after 30 years.
The new law also changes the practice of children serving their sentences in juvenile education centers. Now children serving longer sentences—over 3 years if found guilty of criminal intent and 5 years if found guilty of criminal negligence—will be imprisoned in “closed juvenile correctional institutions” and may only be transferred to education centers if sanctioned by an assessment panel.
A challenge to the law before the Constitutional Court is expected, potentially brought by the opposition Yeni Party. Irrespective of any constitutional ruling, judges should always exercise discretion they have in sentencing, in a manner that respects and upholds applicable international legal standards on children accused of crime, Human Rights Watch said. Türkiye is a party to and bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which together with the jurisprudence and commentary of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, provides authoritative guidance on such standards.
Under international legal standards, states should set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 14, while Türkiye sets it at 12. International law also requires countries not to treat children as adults, but to ensure “the non-discriminatory full application of their child justice system to all persons below the age of 18 years at the time of the offense,” the committee says. Any deprivation of liberty should be for the shortest period of time necessary.
International experts on child justice have developed these standards based on consistent evidence that children’s developing brains lack an adult’s impulse-control, awareness of risk, and capacity to plan or understand the consequences of their actions; on how imprisonment harms children’s development; and how lengthy detention impairs their potential to reintegrate and contribute to society.
Treating children as adults is also incompatible with the rehabilitative and reintegrative purpose that international law assigns to child justice.
The consensus in neuroscience and child development is that children’s brains are rapidly changing and undergoing critical developments, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, which “affects risk-taking, certain kinds of decision-making, and the ability to control impulses,” the Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted.
A focus on harsh imprisonment of children as the response to crime also distracts from other steps needed for public safety, Human Rights Watch said. Evidence shows that treating children as criminals does not increase community safety and that child-centered rehabilitation systems are more likely to prevent harm than harsher punishments. The children’s rights committee found that “the prevalence of crime committed by children tends to decrease” after systems are implemented that promote “the child’s sense of dignity and worth.”
A coalition of Swedish civil society groups recently identified 100 alternatives to jailing children, including stronger social services, better mental health care, school-based support, targeted help for children exploited by criminal networks, and meaningful assistance for families and communities.
The long-term harm of incarceration to children’s mental and physical development are well documented, and in the most serious examples, incarceration can be deadly for children, research has found.
“Punishing children as if they were adults ignores years of scientific findings as well as international law,” Van Esveld said. “With this law, the Turkish government has taken a step backward for public safety as well as children’s rights.”
Facts Only
* A new Turkish law went into effect on August 18, 2026.
* The law allows courts to impose prison sentences up to 27 years for children age 12 and up.
* The law allows life in prison for children aged 15 and older.
* The law directs officials to hold children in closed prisons instead of educational facilities.
* The law amends maximum sentences for children aged 15 to 17, which previously were 24 years for certain offenses.
* If a child between 12 and 14 is deemed criminally responsible, courts may impose up to 27 years for intentional killing and other serious crimes.
* Children serving longer sentences (over 3 years with criminal intent or 5 years with criminal negligence) will be imprisoned in closed juvenile correctional institutions.
* Life sentences for children allow for conditional release after 24 years, and aggravated life imprisonment after 30 years.
* International law suggests setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 14.
Executive Summary
A new Turkish law, effective August 18, 2026, establishes severe prison sentences for children convicted of crimes, allowing courts to impose sentences up to 27 years for those aged 12 and older and life imprisonment for those aged 15 and older. The legislation directs officials to confine children in closed prisons rather than educational facilities, which is considered the appropriate practice for child offenders. Human Rights Watch expressed concern that imposing criminal penalties on children under 14 violates international child rights standards.
The law amends previous maximum sentences for children aged 15 to 17, allowing courts to sentence them to life imprisonment based on factors like intent, motive, and manner of offense. For children aged 12 to 14, the law allows for the determination of criminal responsibility based on understanding legal meaning and behavior control; if responsible, sentences can reach up to 27 years for serious crimes. Furthermore, the law changes juvenile sentencing practices by mandating incarceration in closed correctional institutions for longer-serving children, with transfers to education centers requiring assessment panel approval.
Concerns were raised following a fatal stabbing of a 14-year-old boy in January 2025, which led to increased prison terms advocated by politicians seeking deterrence. Experts argue that punishing children as adults is unjust and ineffective, citing scientific findings about the developing brains of children who are capable of growth and reform. International standards suggest setting the age of criminal responsibility at 14, requiring non-discriminatory application of the child justice system and prioritizing rehabilitation over harsh imprisonment.
Full Take
The narrative presents a direct tension between domestic policy goals—seeking public safety through harsher sentencing—and established international legal and scientific frameworks regarding child development and justice. A key pattern emerging is the conflict between punitive retribution and rehabilitative principles. The argument shifts from simply increasing deterrence (as argued by politicians) to questioning the very basis of adult criminal justice applied to developing minds.
The framing subtly positions the Turkish policy as a regression, contrasting it with international standards that emphasize the child’s capacity for reform, supported by neuroscience regarding brain development and impulse control. This contrast functions to invoke a sense of moral imperative against the enacted law, leveraging the known scientific consensus about adolescent brain plasticity. The inclusion of specific details regarding sentencing timelines and institutional placement provides the necessary structure to ground the ethical critique in concrete policy consequences.
The underlying implication is that legal structures prioritizing adult-like punishment for children are fundamentally incompatible with developmental science and the goals of rehabilitation. The persistence of the focus on harsh incarceration, despite evidence suggesting it does not enhance safety and can be counterproductive, suggests a systemic preference for control over developmental consideration. The pattern of shifting from specific case examples (the stabbing) to broad legal critique acts as an effective mechanism for mobilizing public concern while simultaneously asserting a principled stance rooted in human rights jurisprudence.
What are the long-term costs—beyond immediate safety concerns—of framing childhood criminality through an adult lens? How can systems prioritize evidence-based rehabilitation, as suggested by alternatives like enhanced social services and mental health care, over incarceration? What specific mechanisms are needed to ensure that judicial discretion fully aligns with international child rights standards rather than simply applying statutory maximums?
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a well-sourced synthesis of legal and human rights arguments, likely written by a journalist or analyst synthesizing external reports rather than purely generated content.