Abstract

Determining the age of criminal responsibility for children and adolescents in Islamic legal systems lies at the intersection of jurisprudential foundations of puberty, developmental psychology findings, and international child rights standards, representing one of the most challenging areas of criminal policy. Previous comparative studies on Iran and Egypt have largely confined themselves to describing the statutory age difference, with limited attention to practical and judicial implications. To fill this gap, the present study analyzes two distinct models: the Iranian system, which under Article 91 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code moderates religious puberty criteria through qualitative standards for intellectual maturity, and the Egyptian system, which following the 2008 Child Law amendment replaced traditional jurisprudential criteria with the absolute age of eighteen. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and comparative approach, the study examines jurisprudential foundations, statutory provisions, and judicial practice of both countries, while drawing upon U.S. Supreme Court decisions and German and English legal frameworks as analytical tools. Findings indicate that the Iranian model suffers from judicial inconsistency due to the absence of objective criteria for intellectual maturity, whereas the Egyptian model faces ineffectiveness in dealing with serious juvenile offences due to its absolute age threshold. Accordingly, the study proposes a hybrid model of progressive criminal responsibility founded on three pillars: subdividing the 15–18 age group for ḥadd and qiṣāṣ offences, designing a growth-oriented suspended sanction mechanism based on the juvenile's participation in periodic assessments, and replacing ambiguous qualitative criteria with objective cognitive, behavioural-social, and psychological indicators evaluated by specialized expert panels.