Can minors under 18 commit crimes? A brawl exposes legal awareness gaps

A recent incident involving a group of minors engaging in violence has drawn widespread attention. The perpetrators were filmed beating the victim while shouting, “I’m not 16 years old, call the police if you want.” This statement may seem brazen, but it actually reflects a deeper issue—the minors under 18 have a serious misunderstanding of their legal responsibilities. Although the police responded quickly, subsequent releases of multiple videos showing accomplices’ violence reveal that the problem is far more complex than a single incident.

Perpetrators Boast About Avoiding Punishment, Revealing a Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Law

The most striking detail in this case is the perpetrators’ confident declaration. They believed that since they were under 16, they wouldn’t be held responsible for their violent acts. But this is a fundamental legal misconception.

Chinese law stipulates that minors aged 12 and above are subject to corresponding legal responsibilities. The age of 16 is another important threshold—indicating an expanded scope of responsibility. However, “not executing detention” does not mean “no accountability.” In fact, while the police may not impose administrative detention on those under 16, these illegal acts are still recorded, and parents and schools are responsible for supervision.

The reason minors dare to boast like this shows they lack a proper understanding of the legal significance of the “18” and “16” age boundaries. Being younger doesn’t exempt them from punishment; rather, the forms of responsibility may differ—civil compensation, family education, community correction, and other measures are still applicable.

From School to Internet: New Forms of Organized Violence

Even more concerning is that this is not an isolated event. Multiple videos later revealed that the same group repeatedly assaulted others, indicating that organized violence outside of school is emerging.

These minors have divided roles, act in coordination, and follow repeated patterns of assault. They not only organize violence but also actively record and share videos. The dissemination of these videos causes secondary harm to victims—beyond physical injuries, including psychological trauma and damage to social dignity.

This phenomenon highlights three levels of issues:

• Legal: Minors’ insufficient understanding of legal boundaries
• Educational: Gaps in supervision by families and schools
• Societal: Online sharing amplifies and encourages violent behavior

Proper Rights Protection for Victims

How should victims respond? The key is to adopt a systematic approach to rights protection:

Report to the police immediately: Protect evidence on-site; police reports have legal validity.

Obtain medical assessments: Medical certificates are crucial for civil compensation.

Preserve complete evidence: Save videos, chat records, witness statements, etc.

File complaints with education authorities: If the perpetrators are students from the same school, the school also bears educational responsibility.

Apply for personal safety protection orders: When threats persist, judicial intervention can provide protection.

Pursue civil compensation: Even if administrative detention isn’t enforced, civil liability remains; parents can be held responsible.

Transparency of Rules to Eliminate Gray Areas

This incident fundamentally reflects a systemic issue: when rules are unclear and enforcement lacks transparency, gray areas emerge where individuals believe they can escape responsibility.

Minors dare to act arrogantly mainly because they lack a clear understanding of the consequences. If rules are explicit, enforceable, and outcomes transparent, the temptation to take risks diminishes significantly.

Order depends on two elements: first, rules must be clear and understandable; second, enforcement must be tamper-proof. While traditional systems find this difficult, blockchain and similar deterministic systems can embed rules directly into protocols. Platforms like FOGO, which emphasize high performance and deterministic execution, exemplify this—ensuring behaviors have clear boundaries and outcomes are fully traceable, leaving no gray areas.

This logic applies not only to the digital realm but also offers insights into real-world legal systems: only with transparent institutional design and open enforcement can we reduce offenders’ complacency. When everyone clearly understands the consequences of their actions and knows that outcomes are unchangeable, true deterrence is achieved.

Order begins with clarity.