{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02432667245873154, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013900955690703735, 'mean_word_length': 5.295081967213115, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility for cybercrime

ABSTRACT The criminalization of cybercrime is dependent on national sensitivities and implementation, even though cybercrime exhibits a transnational character. The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime [2001. ETS No. 185, Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime. 23. XI.2001, ETS – No.185. Budapest] does not specify general provisions of substantive criminal law, such as provisions on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Therefore, determining this necessary element of culpability – the MACR for cybercrime – has been left to the choice of the States parties to the Convention. At the moment, the MACRs set by the States parties differ widely. Consequently, discrepancies between national laws have the potential to hinder international cooperation against cybercrime and to create criminal safe havens for perpetrators who are below the MACRs. This paper seeks to analyse the problem for cybercrime enforcement caused by the MACR and to develop suitable criteria against which provisions on MACRs for cybercrime should be judged.