Children Rights

[Yes] In the US, our government has been limiting the language that can be used regarding LGBT+ identities, especially for Transgender people. Conservative politicians and advocates claim that LGBT+ stories in libraries or Pride events are harmful to children and families. In conservative circles, there is a narrative that all LGBT+ people are predatory, and their existence puts children and “the American family” in danger. This is simply untrue. By limiting the way people can openly identify, taking books off of shelves, and shutting down Pride events, our government is infringing upon citizens right free speech.

[Yes] I think in America immigrants are center stage on the news right now. There are other “justifications” being thrown around for why they are being treated increasingly worse by the state but some of the main ones are “fairness” for the American citizens living here and the general rule of law concerning how they got here. I think these arguments crumble quickly under any scrutiny but this is one example of human rights principles being used to restrict certain groups around me.

[Yes] I’ve seen this in South Africa. While our Constitution is strongly rooted in human rights, some state agencies use that same language to justify policies that actually harm vulnerable groups. For example, migration and border policies are often framed as protecting citizens’ rights but end up violating the dignity and access of migrants. Similarly, child protection measures sometimes focus on control rather than support. It shows how human rights can be used selectively, more as political justification than genuine protection.

[Yes] My immediate thoughts turn to the breakup of families in asylum detention centres in the UK and US.
In the UK, there has also been a long-term “campaign” to demonise young people who hang out in public or dress certain ways, leading up to the issuing of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.

[Yes] I have observed these patterns emerge within South Africa mainly because invoking universally accepted principal makes the policy sound incredibly altruistic even when its primary effect is discriminatory or violates the rights of others these policies are used by certain groups to refrain vulnerable groups whose rights are being violated as the sources of a threat against produce South African society and example of this in South Africa would be the patriotic alliance a political party and a vigilante group called operation Dudula.

[Yes] I think in Venezuela this particular issue has been framed more as “the rights of the people.” The government has established all of their policies and solutions around the idea that they are doing it to protect “the people.” It’s of course part of a populist propaganda but it’s also a really powerful tool since it allows citizens to directly connect with a collective.

[Yes] With the recent attempt to implement CHAT Control, an AI mechanism that allows for the indiscriminate control of any chat, image or thought, and the ability to associate words that sound like a paedophile request, concerns are being raised. One of the concerns is the possibility of being unjustly and falsely accused of a paedophile crime without any actual evidence. This could also affect children and tweens, who use slang and phrases popularised by adults or in the media without realising the context. They could also be accused of sharing inappropriate images, facing charges as an adult rather than as a minor.

[Yes] human rights seem to have fallen by the wayside in recent years (Gaza, Congo, Ukraine, etc…. and even much before them in Syria, Afghanistan, etc.) but I believe they should be held more sacredly and effort should be taken to uphold them.

[Yes] Punitive, criminal justice responses (e.g., detention) further marginalize children and adolescents involved in crime. Rather, there should be investments in educational and vocational training opportunities, mentoring and buddy programmes, as well as mental healthcare and psychosocial support for children in marginalised situations.

[No] I do not really understand the question. I feel that human rights should be upheld by state agencies in any case.

[No] We are seeing a strong human rights discourse when it comes to fighting the extreme right discourse, but rarely it comes to children’s rights. On the contrary, I’m positive on the need to invoke children’s rights and next generations in order to stop projects and policies that violate the integrity of these rights and for the people’s. Those being migrants, children, non-humans or people to be born.

[Yes] The detention of migrant children at Lindela is a good example in South Africa. Children were compromised, but others raised questions on whether the children should have been separated from their parents or if it was better to keep the children in the detention center with their parents.

[Yes] To a certain extent, security measures can justify temporary restriction of an individual’s rights. For example, students in America can not bring certain items to a public school because it would pose a safety risk. At public schools in America, the school administrator also has the right to view a student’s browser search history if there are signs that the student poses a harm to themself or others. Children are still entitled to human rights, and these policies should not overreach.

[No] Children’s rights include extra safeguards that take into account their vulnerability. There should be more care taken in investigations when children allegedly commit crimes. Investigations should not compromise the child’s integrity. The child is in a formative stage in life and a lot of trauma can be instilled at this age. Should we take a blanket statement and say that social order justifies compromising a child’s rights we open the door for there to be abuse, specifically toward children of minority and previously disadvantaged groups. No ones rights and integrity should be compromised in the name of social order, however, certain rights are limited when there is danger or sufficient cause. I think such a test should be set should there be a child alleged of a crime but the standard for justification of, for example, a body search should be really high.

[No] I don’t believe crime prevention or social order should ever come at the expense of children’s integrity and rights. Children are among the most vulnerable in society, and exposing them to invasive or punitive measures can cause long-term harm. Preventive efforts should focus on education, protection, and community-based interventions, not on treating children as potential criminals. Once the state crosses that line, it undermines both justice and trust in institutions.

[No] Violating anyone’s rights in the name of crime prevention strikes me as an inevitable road to authoritarianism. It exists already in the guise of Terrorism prevention which is used to justify mass surveillance. I don’t think children in this case should mark and exception and rights should be defended for all when facing violations from the state.

[Yes] Children are unfortunately used by adults to commit henious acts such as drug smuggling and terrorist attacks. I think that there are non-invasive ways to search children, but it is an unfortunate reality.

[No] In my view no crime prevention or social order concern can ever justify compromising a child’s fundamental integrity you’re right children under certain age both morally and ethically should not be held criminally responsible similarly to adults it is a function both of mental development judgement impulse control and responsibility that demonstrate that the factors within each of these characteristics are either absent or still developing within a child so principally holding them to the same level of responsibility as an adult is a miscarriage of justice any action taken by the part of the state should consider what is in the best interests of both the society and the person before it humiliating or traumatising a child through invasive procedures such as this demonstrates a gross overreach or state of authority I believe rehabilitation reintegration oh for better means of helping both the society and the child because in the case of a child it makes for a healthier future as it is an investment in development which is much harder to do if you incarcerate them as an adult.

[No] That type of actions can lead to trauma in a child, if it has to be done it shouldn’t be done a police officer, but by a professional. The child doesn’t understand what or why this is happening, so it’s critical to employ individuals who can ensure the child’s well-being.

[No] During this experience, a child may express embarrassment and fear in the presence of adult men, even when they are performing legitimate procedures, as physical procedures can feel invasive for children. However, I do not exclude the possibility that children can commit heinous acts, intentionally or not. If they are subject to the same scrutiny, severity and judgement as adults, they risk permanently hindering their personality and preventing them from developing a sense of conscience and guilt about their actions. This can be achieved by pointing out the long-term repercussions that these actions might have, without subjecting the child to further humiliation, including physical humiliation.

[Yes] Only in cases where there are well-founded, evidence-based grounds to suspect crime that poses an acute danger to others (e.g., when plans for an attack have been identified) – not as a general preventative measure. Even in such circumstances, children’s integrity and rights should be ensured as much as possible.

[No] This is crazy and should be brought in front of the Court of Justice.

[Yes] They are human beings, and soon or later, they will be crime preventers or crime doers. Either way, none of the two will give them a comfortable life. Let their rights be violated now.

[No] Far more focus should be placed in the education and the structural issues than individual behaviours and protections, especially from a security point of view where a culture of distrust and culpability is created. We should advocate for the contrary to promote a culture of safety through trust and reasoning.

[No] Children’s integrity and rights must never be compromised. There needs to be policies and laws that work on how this can be prevented.

[Yes] Strengthening prevention: welfare programs to families ensuring access to health and education services; emotional education in schools (all grades); compulsory civic service after 14yo. But also compulsory courses for police forces on how to engage with minors from fragile contexts (whether or not they are committing crimes). Allocating more resources to correction centres/jails.

[Yes] Im not sure exactly. But ultimately it’s about getting at the root of the problem, their environment and circumstances. Children don’t want to be involved with organized crime just as they don’t want to work at poultry factories- they are forced into the fold by poverty and instability and addressing those problems has been proven to improve child involvement in these crimes and ultimately young death to these issues

[Yes] I think the government and the communities can approach it directly but also systemically. There should be reformation programs, more resources should be given to schools, more law enforcement should ensure the safety of the children and there should be more food programs as well as government schemes that aid in the development of the area. This contributes positively to children’s experiences and does not compromise them.

[Yes] absolutely. Addressing child involvement in crime requires understanding the why, not punishment, but prevention and rehabilitation. Instead of criminalizing children, governments can invest in social programmes that tackle poverty, trauma, and lack of opportunity. Community-based mentorship, education, and family support systems are far more effective than coercive measures. Restorative justice approaches can hold children accountable while still protecting their dignity and future potential.

[Yes] The question is more where should the emphasis lie. I think you can reduce crime by investing in the community and building spaces for communal activities. I’m not sold on the idea that children are spontaneously committing crime. But also creating support networks in schools and community centres seems like a clear alternatively along with improving people’s material lives.

[No] I think the child’s rights and integrity have already been compromised by adults who have influenced or forced them to join these organizations. I do think, however, that reformative actions should be taken after they are freed from their grasps, to allow them to become functioning members of society, opposed to punitive punishment.

[Yes] Turn off better ways to handle challenges such as child involvement in organised crime it requires a shift away from punitive punishment to a more public health and social justice model solution fundamentally one must trust the root causes of child involvement in organise crime unlike adults children’s lives can be redirected dramatically through addressing poverty and lack of opportunity family stability or potential neglect and trauma, there must be an investment in job training, mentorship or apprenticeship, parental support and therapeutic interventions, access to trauma informed care and mental health services I am off to believe the children involved in organised crime before they are deliberately co-opted into these actions they are victims of exploitation first and thus offenders second.

[Yes] Solutions that aim to solve the root causes of these issues. If this is happening there are larger structural problems that are pushing children to engage in these activities. It’s important to address these and provide the spaces for children’s recreation as well.

[Yes] Investing in educational and vocational training opportunities as well as mental healthcare and psychosocial support for children in marginalised situations; establishing mentoring and buddy programmes.

[Yes] The first thing that comes to mind is targeted educational programmes. Through active listening and specific educational interventions, challenges related to criminality and social unrest could potentially be addressed. These solutions require 1) a deep knowledge of the specific social context and 2) time. However, in the long run, these could be key measures to minimise the mentioned issues.

[Yes] I believe child gangs need to be first brought to book, before their rights are brought forward.
Anyhow, we could consider having their guardians become access to holding their children punishable if engaged in crime.

[Yes] My assumption would be yes, but I need to research into the topic to be able to provide an actual answer to this question.

[Yes] There is a definite asymmetry in these decisions, but this is inherent because of the imbalance between the role of adults and children in the world. It seems unfair to restrict the individual rights of a child because it is in their “best interest”, but it would also be unfair to prosecute or treat every child as a fully independent, fully grown adult. In the US, many undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Latin America have been deported by the Trump administration. This includes children. In some cases, this means children as young as 5 are being held in court and put through the deportation process as adults. Young children may not understand the situation or advocate for themselves. The mass deportations under the Trump administration are a flagrant violation of human rights, but it seems the cases in which children are treated the same as adults are even more egregious.

The question above cannot be answered in yes or no because there are separate questions being asked at once:
I see a problem with adults making decisions for children but I also think there are times where that is completely necessary because of young people’s lack of understanding genuine consequences. In a very basic way; a 10 year old might like that his uncle gives him beer at dinner, but we know that effects his brain and his mom is in the right when she bans that from happening.

[Yes] In some cases, yes, but only when it’s clearly necessary and proportionate. The “best interests of the child” principle can justifiably limit other rights if doing so directly protects a child’s safety, development, or dignity. However, it should never be used vaguely or politically to override the rights of others. Any limitation must be evidence-based, transparent, and subject to review to ensure it doesn’t become a tool for discrimination or control.

[No] I would have liked an N/A answer for this. I don’t understand the “best interests of the child” principle to be used to justify limiting other rights but simply as a procedure of priority when dealing with a legal case. I think the principle of best interests of the child is also heavily violated in asylum procedures so it isn’t as strongly held in all cases as it seems.

[Yes] Yes but these are in times of unquestionable burden of proof the best interest of a child requires that the state intervene if there is evidence that their right to safety from abuse and neglect is being violated that’s requiring immediate intervention this gives the actor in this case being the stat full legal moral ethical override to a parent right to family autonomy.

[No] I’m not completely sure about this question. I believe the rights of children are going through many transformations as they grow up. I would like to say that the rights of others should restricts the rights of a different group. This question would go back to what we understand as our rights, I believe.

[Yes] This justification, whether direct or indirect, is used to limit children’s access to information, spaces and places without the necessary adult supervision or approval. This allows them to become autonomous and learn how to handle relationships with their peers and other adults. This justification is also used to distinguish children who more or less reflect a political fantasy of childhood. It is nothing new that children are either idolised or demonised as they embody the purest and most evil sentiments and concepts of social values. This distinction is used to discredit children with a clear racial and social identity as they ask questions and make requests relating to their identity. The ‘best interests of the child’ justification is used to punish children for being autonomous in the proper sense, and for developing their own ideas and identity.

[Yes] Again I think it depends on the care with which it is implemented – often it can be abused to take children from their homes, or executed without nuance eg. for religious beliefs.

[No] Needs to be equitable.

[Yes] Yes, under strictly justified circumstances, such as removing a child from parents due to serious neglect or abuse.

[No] Again, I do not understand the question. Why should HR be compromised and weighted against each other. Isn’t this funamdentally against the HR declaration?

[No] Such a broad statement needs to be assessed case by case, as it is very hard to answer this question in general terms. What individual rights would be limited? How are these rights related to the ‘best interests of the child’ principle? Who is involved? Where?

[Yes] The sentence is strange, what is to be understood as best interest and who defines and for what? What are the individual rights being limited? I think it depends on the perspective that is being taken .From a climate perspective, for example is more than justifiable. From a surveillance point of view is not.

[No] What do you mean by “conviction”? If it’s assessing whether a child poses a high risk to others, yes. If it’s about treating him like an adolescent or a young adult, no. Depends on specific cases and jurisdictions.

[No] If a child is to have the same individual rights as an adult, some would argue that they should receive the same consequences for infringing upon the rights of others. I believe other factors in a child’s life should be taken into account when deciding fault, and things like reform and mental health support should be considered as part of the solution. Prosecuting a young child and placing them in a program like Juvenile Detention poses a significant developmental and ethical problem. There is a lot of gray area, and no single policy will fit every situation.

[No] This totally depends on what conviction and prosecution looks like in your country. If they get it on their record and have to go to therapy, an alternative school, or whatever else restorative then I think that’s needed, but if they are to be locked up until they’re in their twenties then I think that’s wrong. Putting children in the prison system increases their recidivism and reduces, often serration from crime. Particularly if the crime is gang related.

[No] A child under 14 is in a formative time and is quite vulnerable to circumstance. I think children under 14 should always be given the chance to grow up and learn and have a second chance. The chance of coercion at that age is also very high.

[No] I don’t think it’s appropriate to prosecute a child under 14. At that age, children don’t yet have full moral or psychological capacity to understand the long-term consequences of their actions. The focus should be on rehabilitation, support, and addressing the social or economic factors that led to their involvement not punishment. Adults or networks explouiting them should be held accountable instead.

[No] They are both victims and offenders. No child chooses that life, they are forced to live it. They should be put in reformative care.

[No] It is inappropriate it has been established in advanced legal President doctrine and systems the children under the age of 14 lack the cognitive and moral maturity to fully commit a crime to what would be considered for criminal intent if children under this age are engaged in such crimes a focus on punitive punishment and a permanent criminal record I do believe guarantees a menace to society rather there should be a strong focus on therapeutic and protective in this case welfare and child protection measures in order to try re-shape and redirect the life of this child, if such efforts proven unsuccessful then and only then should such options be considered appropriate.

[No] Similar to my previous answer, and considering that teenagers are subject to so many behavioral changes, I think that type of actions simply push the teenager even further into this world. A prosecution doesn’t aim to understand why this child engaged in crime, it simply punishes them. It’s critical to understand the larger context in order to ensure that this person no longer feels the need to act in such away and to prevent other children from falling into the same cycle.

[No] Even when children commit crimes, especially when they are consciously aware of what they are doing and show no sign of regret or attempt at redemption, they should be judged and face the consequences. However, as mentioned in previous questions, they have not been subjected to invasive physical or psychological procedures or measurements during the judgement and investigation phases.

[Yes] if there is a pattern of behaviour or a psychological condition that means they are likely to reoffend then I think it is in the public interest to do so, yes. If they have been manipulated into it and show signs of ability to be reformed then I don’t believe the same punitive action should be taken as with an older child or adult.

[No] They should instead be safeguarded and given opportunities to have a new up bringing and better support. No one is born a criminal, it is down to social circumstances.

[No] I’m not familiar enough with current legal processes of prosecution and conviction (and the consequences thereof) to provide a clear answer to this question. My gut feeling would say that this can further marginalize children, leading to fewer opportunities for reintegration and a higher likelihood of repeated crime involvement.

[No] I get what the author is trying to get at here but honestly: children are children and should be treated this way.

[No] It is hard to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to such a question. Generally, involvement in crime or subversive criminal activities must be somehow punished. When considering children under 14, special measures must be taken into consideration. Alternatives to stronger approaches, such as prosecuting and convicting, could be restorative justice programmes and mentoring schemes.

[Yes] I feel no remorse for delinquent kids.

[Yes] It certainly depends on the crime and whatever is done should not be exempt, that doesn’t mean we should take the same approach as with older ages. There are different sorts of crimes as well and that should be taken into account as well, but in general I would say more pedagogical and flexible approaches need to be taken. Ultimately, the goal shall be educate the person and reinstate them as critical and responsible citizens, not “punishing” them (which has already been proved not to work very well with adults either).

[Yes] A 14-year-old child or older already knows the difference between right and wrong. They know they should not kill, steal, etc. In South Africa, there are many cases where children around this age, and some are younger, are already committing crimes.

[Yes] Children are both the victims and offenders when it comes to child crime. If that is an issue to be addressed, we need to look at the systems and institutions that have allowed them to fall through the cracks.

[Yes] The interaction of parent and child and where there is a blur between parents being tasked with having their child’s best interest but also not always doing so is really complex and I think important to consider with any topic of children because inevitably children do not exist in a vacuum… a lot of what they face is directly related to how their parents act.

[Yes] I think it’s important to more strongly involve children and adolescents in decision-making (participation alongside protection). Even though challenging, examples of that could include participatory research projects with children involved in organised crime (or at risk of involvement) to develop solutions that they think would be beneficial for them (as alternatives to detetion and punitive, criminal justice responses).

[Yes] I am not entirely sure what this survey is trying to get at. I feel it should be mentioned that criminal children should not be given up – neither by society nor by politicians or anybody. Society has to tackle the root causes diligently and cautiously without trying to find a one size fits all approach.

[Yes] Possibly, but I’m not that familiar with the matter.