The experts on the podium agreed that lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12 – as proposed by some political actors – would be counterproductive. The debate became more concrete, though no less controversial, when discussing the possible introduction of closed socio-pedagogical facilities in which so-called “system sprengers” could be placed in the future.

School Director Monika Hodoschek emphasised in her opening remarks the importance of schools as places of orientation. Sebastian Öhner (Austrian League for Human Rights) pointed out that Austria still has considerable implementation gaps regarding the Federal Constitutional Law on the Rights of the Child.

Moderator Patricia Mussi-Mailer (LBI-GMR) introduced the topic and addressed her first question to Walter Dillinger (Vienna Police Directorate): Why is the public debate intensifying right now?

Why the pressure is rising

Dillinger referred to findings from an inter-institutional working group on child and youth crime, which he chaired and which presented a five-point plan with recommendations in May 2025. A very small group of 10- to 14-year-olds repeatedly commit serious offences—sometimes up to 1,500 acts by a single individual. The number of suspects in this age group has risen significantly. The police increasingly reach their limits, he explained, because imposing educational measures is outside their mandate.

Josef Hiebl, Deputy Head of Vienna’s Child and Youth Welfare Service, provided historical context: Since a reform in the late 1980s, Austria has no longer permitted deprivation of liberty for children under 14—a model that worked well for many years but is now insufficient for a handful of particularly severe cases.

Sigrun Roßmanith, psychiatrist, psychotherapist and court-appointed expert, explained the psychological and social dynamics behind such developments: lack of emotional care, instability, and the search for belonging—often found in peer groups or gangs. Repeated delinquency often resembles an addictive pattern; girls, too, are increasingly displaying significant levels of violence.

The question of the ultima ratio

Helmut Sax, a leading children’s rights expert and Senior Researcher at LBI-GMR, outlined the human-rights dimension: deprivation of liberty is one of the most severe interferences with fundamental rights and, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, permissible only as a measure of last resort. All alternatives must first be exhausted, and proportionality must be clearly demonstrated.

Against this backdrop, Mussi-Mailer posed the key question of the evening: “Have we in fact already reached this ultima ratio?”

Opinions diverged. Based on detailed data from their working group, Dillinger and Hiebl argued that, for a very small group of highly burdened children, this point had indeed been reached. Sax disagreed: without transparent data, sufficiently developed alternatives, and a demonstrable proportionality test, deprivation of liberty could not be justified. He also warned of a potential “pull effect”—as seen in the United Kingdom, where narrowly framed measures had opened the door to a significant increase in custodial placements.

Why closed facilities are being discussed at all

The discussion about closed socio-pedagogical facilities is closely tied to recent political debates. The former government’s proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 was unanimously rejected by the experts on the podium as ineffective, non-child-appropriate and incompatible with fundamental principles of children’s rights.

In this context, a different approach is receiving attention: a working group within the Ministry of Justice is examining a potential legal framework for closed socio-pedagogical facilities. Some experts consider such options necessary in rare extreme cases; others emphasise the substantial human-rights risks. There was broad agreement, however, that if such facilities were to be introduced, they must only take the form of very small, highly professionalised settings.

Prevention in focus: the five-point plan

Dillinger and Hiebl also presented the working group’s five-point plan, which focuses primarily on preventive measures: close cooperation between police and youth welfare services, early intervention, and socio-pedagogical guidance. Deprivation of liberty in closed facilities is explicitly designated as a last resort—a principle shared across the panel.

“What should one do when a child starts to slip away?”

To conclude the expert discussion, Mussi-Mailer shifted to a personal dimension: “What should one do when, as a parent or teacher, one notices that a child is slipping away?” Roßmanith advised seeking help early—including help for the parents themselves. Hiebl stressed that many families of severely burdened children are under significant, often socio-economic pressure and are both part of the problem and part of the solution.

The evening made clear that there are no simple answers. At the same time, it underscored that children’s rights apply equally to those who cross boundaries. Whether new measures such as closed facilities can play a constructive role will depend largely on whether sufficient investment is made in preventive, long-term and individually tailored support structures.

The Human Rights Talks are a platform for social discourse on current topics with human rights relevance. The events present top-class speakers to the interested public and analyse human rights challenges and socio-political trends in a differentiated manner and with professional expertise, but at the same time in an accessible way and with practical relevance. An important component of the format is the interactive audience discussion.