Following the clashes

There is a question that deserves to be asked every time a demonstration descends into street violence, as has happened in Milan in recent days, with dozens of arrests, many of them of minors: what actually happens to a minor who commits these offences? And what would happen in Germany, France, Spain or England?

The response helps to overcome a caricatured dichotomy: on the one hand, those who would like to treat minors as adult criminals; on the other, those who use a young age as a licence for impunity. In Europe, there are mechanisms in place to be strict without sacrificing the educational purpose of punishment.

In Germany, criminal responsibility begins at the age of fourteen, as in Italy, but the ‘Jugendarrest’ (juvenile detention) allows the judge to order short periods of detention, including at weekends or for one to four weeks, alongside compensation, reparation for damages and community service. In Spain, also from the age of fourteen, there is weekend detention, lasting up to thirty-six hours at home or in a facility, as well as probation and community service; parents are jointly and severally liable under civil law.

In England and Wales, criminal liability applies from the age of ten: following the riots of 2024, some 16-year-olds were sentenced to imprisonment, whilst others were ordered to undertake intensive educational programmes and pay compensation. In France, where custodial sentences may be imposed from the age of thirteen, measures include exclusion orders, reporting requirements and sanctions for parents who seriously fail to fulfil their duties.

And what about Italy? Here too, minors can be arrested, tried and sentenced: there are statutes of limitations, house arrest, community service, pre-trial detention and probation; the Caivano decree has strengthened certain measures; and parents may be required to pay compensation. It is not true that the tools are lacking. The issue is how they are applied, within what timeframe and with what safeguards. Juvenile justice should not be reduced to a choice between prison and nothing.

Responsibility must be established on a case-by-case basis, but once established, a young age should not mean there are no consequences. And there is one major absentee from the debate: the victim – the shopkeeper whose shop window was smashed, the police officer who was attacked – whose rights deserve the same attention as the motives of those who commit acts of violence.

There is no evidence that stricter systems work better. But there is a fine line between understanding and justifying, between educating and absolving. It is in that space that the state’s credibility is measured: protesting is a right, causing devastation is a crime, and being a minor does not mean that the crime goes unpunished.