It is not a question of being 'soft’ on crime, but of being smart about crime prevention, youth recidivism and youth development

By Stelios Parparinos

The recent increase in incidents of young offenders – Easter bonfires, firework misuse and sports-related violence – is undeniably a matter of significant public concern.

Each week seems to bring fresh headlines that understandably cause unease and prompt questions about the welfare of our youth as well as the efficacy of the justice system in adequately dealing with young offenders.

In this context, the justice minister has proposed what he terms “decisive action”. His call for “express procedures” in cases involving young offenders, conveyed in a letter to the Supreme Court, requests expedited legal processes to deliver swift consequences, thereby sending a strong deterrent message.

While the desire for decisive action to pressing social issues is understandable and public frustration is palpable, it is essential to critically examine whether such an approach aligns with best practices and existing legal frameworks, particularly concerning juvenile justice, where the future of our society is at stake. Is a “tougher, faster” strategy the most effective path when dealing with the complexities inherent when youth offend?

A comprehensive legislative framework is already in place. In 2021, parliament enacted Law N.55(1)/2021, entitled “The Children in Conflict with the Law”. This underused legislation established a justice system specifically designed to be friendly to the child perpetrator – defined as individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged offence and in any case under the age of 21 during legal proceedings. A justice system specifically attuned to their developmental needs and rehabilitative potential.

The core tenets of this law represented a departure from purely punitive models. Instead, it emphasised the need to support and understand young offenders, over sanctions. It called on stakeholders to identify the root causes of offending behaviour and provided nuanced and individualised rehabilitation to facilitate positive change, equipping young individuals with skills and support to undergo effective rehabilitation and societal reintegration for society to also benefit from the re-entry of constructive members.

The law also explicitly mandated that deprivation of liberty for young offenders is a measure of last resort to be used under exceptional circumstances when no other viable alternative exists. Custody terms should be for the shortest appropriate duration. Instead, alternatives measures such as restorative justice, educational interventions and community-based programmes should be prioritised.

Historical precedents within Cyprus, such as the old Reform School of Lapithos whose positive community engagement and rehabilitative efforts were notably felt in areas like Lambousa, effectively showcased decades ago that an emphasis on instruction, vocational training and social inclusion – principles reflected in current legislation – can yield far more constructive societal outcomes.

These principles are well-supported by research, which consistently demonstrates that supportive, rehabilitative approaches are more effective in reducing long-term recidivism than predominantly punitive ones. However, as we find ourselves in May 2025, there is a prevailing sentiment, corroborated by rising youth crime statistics, that Law N.55(1)/2021 has not been fully or consistently implemented. This underutilisation means its potential benefits remain largely untested, while current approaches are visibly struggling to contain the issue.

The minister’s proposal for express procedures presents a notable divergence from the letter and the spirit of the current law. This apparent conflict transcends mere legal interpretation. It touches upon fundamental aspects of the democracy and the rule of law. When executive actions, however well-intentioned, seem to circumvent established legislation, it raises legitimate concerns as the democratic process, enacted as a clear expression of the will of the people through parliament, is undermined. Laws are enacted to provide a fair and predictable framework for society. When these frameworks are not adhered to, by the executive and the judicial system, the consequences and implications are grave.

The rationale underpinning the current legal framework regarding young offenders and indeed modern juvenile justice philosophy worldwide is grounded in substantial evidence. The minister seems to be acting reactively, disregarding key considerations.

Adolescent neurodevelopment, particularly for judgement, impulse control and long-term planning is still progressing. Justice systems must account for this budding development stage. Additionally, the impact of labelling, especially prematurely labelling a young person as a criminal through truncated processes can have long-lasting negative consequences on their self-esteem, educational and employment opportunities and only places young offenders at increased risk of re-offending.

Approaches that emphasise understanding harm, making amends and addressing underlying causes such as family issues, substance abuse or lack of opportunity have shown greater success in fostering genuine reform of youth offenders and reducing recidivism.

A directive favouring accelerated processing may offer the appearance of swift justice, but it sacrifices the care and thorough assessment that tailored interventions require, under the current legal framework. It may prove to be a short-term measure with detrimental long-term consequences.

Youth crime is a serious challenge. The rising trends are indeed worrisome. The minister’s concerns are valid. However, the pursuit of immediate solutions should not overshadow the need for sustainable, evidence-based strategies, strategies that are already in place that need to be further developed and consistently used. True progress lies not in expedited punishments but in the diligent application of laws designed to be both just and effective. It is not a question of being ‘soft’ on crime, but of being smart about crime prevention, youth recidivism and youth development.


Stelios Parparinos is a lawyer at Parparinos law firm