Sentencing Children for Violent Extremism: Part 1
| Date | 01 April 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/14732254221083187 |
| Published date | 01 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Commentary |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221083187
Youth Justice
2022, Vol. 22(1) 101 –108
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14732254221083187
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Sentencing Children for
Violent Extremism: Part 1
Nigel Stone
In the course of the last decade, authoritative attention has been drawn to the challenge
posed by children’s involvement in violent extremism and terrorism-related activity and
the scope for youth justice systems to adopt and pursue a child-centred approach to coun-
ter-terrorism. Most prominently, the United Nations has issued a Handbook of guidance
on principled and effective practice (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
2017), building on the Neuchâtel Memorandum (Global Counterterrorism Forum, 2015)
and work by the Global Centre on Cooperative Security/International Centre for Counter-
Terrorism (2016, augmented in 2017). The nature of this global phenomenon is self-evi-
dently multi-faceted, both as regards the ideological agendas prompting the pursuit of
extremist initiatives and the diversity of avenues along which extremism can be embraced,
but some familiar key themes have emerged, including (in no intended ranking by impor-
tance) and, of course, in no way unique to this form of youthful crime:
Children involved in extremism and perpetrating terrorism-related crimes may well
be victimised and well as victimising, for example by being targeted, groomed and
coerced into cooption;
Proper regard should be had to the child’s relative immaturity of judgement, less-
developed capacity for self-control and propensity to act impulsively without a full
understanding of the consequences;
Recognition should be given that the child may not have been radicalised but may
have been seeking to pursue other perceived pay-offs though extremist expression;
Thorough, individualised risk assessments should be undertaken, adopting a child
development perspective before determining the appropriate action;
Creative diversion strategies should be considered that may pay off more effec-
tively than either prosecution or incarceration;
Corresponding author:
Nigel Stone, School of Psychology, University of East Anglia, Lawrence Stenhouse Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Email: n.stone@uea.ac.uk
1083187YJJ0010.1177/14732254221083187Youth JusticeStone
other2022
Legal Commentary
To continue reading
Request your trial