Türkiye’s Juvenile Justice Reforms Risk Damaging Rights After Minguzzi Killing
A violent attack in an Istanbul market in January 2025, which resulted in the death of 15-year-old Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi, has become the catalyst for vast changes to Türkiye’s juvenile justice system. Minguzzi was stabbed five times in broad daylight by a 15-year-old and assaulted by a 16-year-old. The killing triggered widespread public outrage and caused the Turkish government to push through legislative reforms.
Türkiye’s 11th Judicial Reform Package seeks to eliminate sentence reductions for 15–18-year-olds convicted of serious crimes and expose them to prison terms of up to 27 years without mitigation.
Proponents argue that these measures will enhance accountability and deterrence. Critics, however, warn that the reforms represent a departure from evidence-based juvenile justice principles and international human rights obligations.
The Minguzzi case has been used by the government to justify its position. Yasemin Minguzzi, Mattia’s mother, has publicly called for the prosecution of her son’s attackers as adults. She staged a sit-in and directly appealed to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Her grief is understandable, and no parent should endure such a loss.
Yet the government’s response prioritizes punitive measures over the complexities of juvenile justice. The vandalism of Mattia’s tomb and threats against his family intensified public demands for retribution, which, in return, made the reasoned debate difficult.
The UN’s Beijing Rules, which set out the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, emphasize that “the well-being of the juvenile” should be the primary focus of juvenile justice systems. Alongside the Havana Rules and the Riyadh Guidelines, these frameworks stress that deprivation of liberty should be a last resort, that rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment, and that justice systems must address the root causes of delinquent behavior. Türkiye’s proposed reforms take a different direction, as it is prone to overlook the developmental capacity of adolescents for change.
Research shows that punitive approaches to young offenders fail to reduce recidivism and can exacerbate criminal behavior. Rehabilitation programs that address underlying issues, such as substance abuse, mental health challenges, family dysfunction, or trauma, have proven more effective in reducing repeat offenses and promoting positive behavior. When juveniles receive adult sentences and are incarcerated alongside adult offenders, they face exposure to more serious criminals, lack access to education and mental health support, and are more likely to reoffend upon release.
Türkiye’s reforms do not reflect this evidence. Instead, they adopt a model that may satisfy public anger in the short term but risks worse outcomes in the long run.
The timing of Türkiye’s crackdown on adolescent crime is notable. In March 2021, Türkiye became the first country to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, a Council of Europe treaty designed to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence.
The withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention has had severe consequences. Türkiye already had alarmingly high rates of violence against women; in 2020 alone, at least 300 women were killed. Leaving the convention removed a critical mechanism for oversight and accountability, which can embolden perpetrators.
The proposed reforms also include measures to criminalize parents for “neglecting” their duties and public officials for failing to implement preventive measures. While the idea of parental accountability may seem reasonable, in practice, it risks criminalizing poverty and social marginalization. Many families whose children enter the justice system already face unemployment, housing insecurity, and limited access to mental health services. Prosecuting parents for “neglect” does nothing to address the systemic issues that contribute to such neglect; it only compounds the hardships these families endure.
The reform process has largely sidelined expert voices. Child development specialists emphasize the importance of parental support, early education, and addressing environmental factors in preventing youth crime.
Lawyers note that Türkiye’s juvenile justice system, established under the 2005 Child Protection Law, was designed to prioritize rehabilitation, with specialized courts and the involvement of psychologists and social workers. These changes were based on decades of global research and best practices, not political expediency. Dismantling them in response to a single high-profile case represents a flawed approach to policymaking.
The government argues that the reforms are necessary because criminal organizations exploit lenient juvenile sentences by recruiting minors to commit serious offenses.
While it is true that organized crime sometimes uses children as disposable operatives, the solution is not to treat child offenders as if they were adult criminals.
Instead, efforts should focus on dismantling the criminal networks that exploit them, providing economic opportunities that reduce the appeal of gang involvement and have support services ready to keep at-risk youth away from crime.
Harsher sentences do little to address the conditions that further organized crime.
Türkiye’s shift toward punitive measures is also concerning with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Türkiye ratified in 1995.
The Convention guarantees children the right to be heard, to have their best interests prioritized, and to receive treatment that promotes rehabilitation and reintegration. It requires states to establish laws, procedures, and institutions specifically for juvenile offenders, with detention used only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. Sentencing 15-18-year-olds to up to 27 years without parole contradicts these obligations may mean consigning them to decades in adult prisons.
The Minguzzi case is undeniably tragic. But the appropriate response to tragedy is not to ignore a legal framework designed to protect children’s rights and support their development.
The focus should be on strengthening prevention, investing in community-based interventions, ensuring access to mental health and educational resources for high-risk youth, and holding adults accountable when they fail to provide adequate supervision and support.
Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi deserved better. He deserved a society that invests in preventing youth violence, that examines the socioeconomic factors driving adolescents to commit horrific acts, and where justice is served without sacrificing the rights and futures of other young people.
The reforms invoked in his name do not honor his memory. They illustrate the dangers of reactive, punitive policymaking and the consequences when political expediency over the well-being of their youth is prioritized, and rehabilitation is choosen over retribution.