[Editor’s Note] E-Daily asks, and you answer. We’ve compiled every comment you’ve shared on the week’s hot topics to present a summary of public opinion. What will next week’s topic be? Your vote becomes a news story.

[Edaily Reporter Choi Min-A ] With the recent buzz surrounding the Netflix series “True Education,” the debate over juveniles subject to juvenile justice laws is resurfacing.

“Juveniles subject to juvenile law” refers to adolescents aged 10 or older but under 14 who have committed acts that violate criminal statutes. While they are not subject to criminal punishment under the Criminal Code, they may be subject to protective measures under the Juvenile Act, and no criminal record is created. Since its enactment in 1953, the Juvenile Act has undergone several revisions to refine the framework for protective measures and juvenile criminal cases.

Amid concerns that the nature of offenses committed by juveniles subject to juvenile protection measures is becoming increasingly severe, there are coexisting arguments: one calls for lowering the applicable age limit to better reflect reality, while the other advocates abolishing the system altogether and holding juveniles criminally liable regardless of age.

Reflecting these societal concerns, a partial amendment to the Criminal Act proposing to lower the age threshold for juveniles subject to the Juvenile Act has been submitted to the National Assembly and is currently under discussion in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. The core proposal is to lower the age of criminal responsibility from the current threshold of under 14 years old, thereby enabling the imposition of criminal liability on juvenile offenders above a certain age.

E-Daily conducted a ten-day reader poll on the topic, “Lowering the Age for Juvenile Offenders: What Do You Think?” Of the 9,646 participants, 5,982 (62%) supported lowering the age threshold. A total of 3,548 (36%) believed the system should be abolished entirely, while only 116 (1%) took a cautious stance, arguing that education and rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment.

Combining those in favor of lowering the age limit and those calling for its abolition, 98% of respondents indicated that changes to the current system are necessary. This demonstrates that readers’ concerns regarding the juvenile delinquency system have strongly manifested as demands for system reform or stricter penalties.

A variety of perspectives were also evident in readers’ comments. One reader argued, “Given that real-world conditions have changed—such as the widespread use of smartphones and the early maturation of children and adolescents—past standards no longer align with the present,” and called for lowering the age of application to 10 or younger or abolishing the system altogether. They cited the fact that the methods used in juvenile crimes are becoming increasingly sophisticated and brutal as evidence.

On the other hand, some argued that parents should be held more accountable rather than simply strengthening penalties. One reader stated, “A significant portion of juvenile crime is linked to a lack of parental guidance,” and argued that guardians should also be subject to certain legal and social responsibilities.

There were also calls for changes to the educational environment itself. One reader pointed out that “it is difficult to expect students to stay on the right path when teachers’ authority has eroded,” stressing that environmental changes must come first. While some argued that establishing an effective social and legal education system is the fundamental solution, concerns were simultaneously raised about whether such a system could be properly implemented in reality.

In this poll, public opinion overwhelmingly favored reforming the juvenile delinquency system. However, even as calls to lower the age threshold and abolish the system gained traction, there were also continued calls to develop complementary solutions outside the system, such as strengthening parental responsibility, restoring teachers’ authority, and expanding legal education.