The case of Mario, the child killed by other children in Timiș: The real problem is not the lack of tough laws
Every time a particularly serious criminal act catches the public's attention, the Romanian state reacts reflexively, almost Pavlovian: it tightens the penalties, eliminates the individualization of the penalties, lowers the age of criminal responsibility. It is not a rational reaction, but an emotional one. A primary instinct, of symbolic defense, through which the state asserts its authority not so much in front of the criminal, but in front of an indignant public, writes, in an opinion article, Ioan Durnescu, teaching staff at the Faculty of Sociology of the University of Bucharest.
VIDEO Cena's case: “I was locked in the house with the children”. Report from Timiș after Mario's death: other parents describe threats and how the perpetrators also beat their son
- A 15-year-old teenager from the town of Cenei in Timiș was killed, and the main suspects are three teenagers – two 15-year-olds and one 13-year-old. One of the 15-year-old boys is accused of killing, together with the 13-year-old, their friend, whom they hit with a hatchet and a knife. The pair then called the second 15-year-old child to help them hide the body, set it on fire and buried it in a garden.
Ioan Durnescu, PhD associate professor at the Faculty of Sociology and Social Work of the University of Bucharest, writes, in an article published today by HotNews, that every time in such situations “penal policy becomes a form of moral spectacle, and legislation, a setting designed to convey the message: “I did something”.
This is how the Anastasia Law appeared, which excludes the suspension of the execution of the sentence in certain cases of manslaughter in a traffic context. This is how the penalties for sexual offenses with minors have been tightened. This is how the idea of lowering the age of criminal responsibility, invariably invoked after every crime committed by a teenager, reappears cyclically. In all these cases, the state's reaction is quick, simplistic and profoundly predictable. And equally ineffective.
“The state punishes more harshly not because it works, but because it looks good”
The criminological literature has been clear for over four decades: tougher sentences have no significant effect on crime. The certainty of the sanction matters more than its severity, and for most serious crimes – especially those committed under emotional impulse, group influence or cognitive immaturity – the rational calculation of punishment is practically non-existent.
In other words, the state punishes more harshly not because it works, but because it looks good. The law becomes an act of public communication, not a prevention tool. Garland describes this phenomenon as part of a “culture of control,” in which criminal policy responds to social anxieties, not empirical realities. The scandal calls for symbolic blood, and the state provides it in the form of tougher laws. A kind of “bread and circus”.
“If the current direction continues, we will end up with a society divided into two large categories”
The recent case in Timiș County – in which three teenagers, one of whom is 13 years old, killed and set fire to another 15-year-old – has reignited calls for lowering the age of criminal responsibility. The argument seems intuitive: if minors were criminally liable earlier, such acts would be prevented. The problem is that the data consistently disproves this intuition.
The simplest proof is this very case: two of the perpetrators were already 15 years old, so they were in the area of possible criminal liability. The existence of this liability had no preventive effect. This fact is perfectly explainable from the perspective of developmental psychology. Adolescents show incomplete executive control, increased sensitivity to group influence, and a systematic underestimation of risks. Demanding that the criminal law compensate for these neurocognitive limits is not only unrealistic but intellectually dishonest.
Moreover, comparative studies show that systems that try juveniles as adults increase the rate of recidivism, not reduce it. Early contact with the prison system reinforces criminal identity and weakens prosocial bonds. The state “solves” the problem of violent teenagers by very expensively producing more prolific adult criminals.
Romania already has over 25,000 people deprived of their liberty, that is, approximately 125 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. It is not a European record, but it is enough to indicate a structural dependence on detention as a universal solution to social problems. If the current direction continues, we will end up with a society functionally divided into two broad categories: those behind bars and those who guard them.
This dynamic is not a figure of speech. Wacquant describes exactly this process in societies that use the penal system to manage social failures: poverty, exclusion, school dropout, community violence. In the absence of investments in prevention, the state invests in walls, fences and uniforms.
What the state does not do (and should do)
The real problem is not the lack of tough laws, but the absence of early prevention mechanisms.
In the case of juvenile violence, research indicates clear risk factors: unresolved conflicts at school, dysfunctional family environments, unhealthy family patterns, substance use, community segregation, lack of mental health services, absence of constructive ways of spending free time, etc.
The state should invest in:
- mechanisms for early identification of conflicts in schools (mediation, real psychological counseling, not formal);
- community centers in disadvantaged areas, offering structured activities and social support;
- evidence-based family interventions;
- restorative programs to intervene before violence becomes an identity.
These solutions are known, tested and proven to be effective. But they don't produce spectacular headlines and don't satisfy the immediate desire for punishment. They are slow, expensive and politically unattractive. Exactly the kind of policies a mature state should adopt.
“Scandal legislation is easy”
By its very nature, the state should be an agent of institutional self-control, not an amplifier of public anger. Its role is not to react instinctually, but to shape social instincts through rational and effective policies. Instead of educating, the state punishes. Instead of preventing, it reacts. Instead of building, it tightens.
Scandal legislation is easy. Evidence-based criminal policy is hard. The difference between the two is the difference between a nervous state and a responsible state.
This article was originally published in Contributors.ro.
