Juvenile delinquency is an issue, which is frequently discussed in society and media. Often, isolated incidents, where young people have committed a shocking criminal act, end up receiving immense media attention resulting in political discussions about juvenile delinquency.

People have different views on how to prevent juvenile delinquency and often disagree on how society should handle juvenile offenders. This disagreement also exists among Danish politicians.
The last couple of years, the subject of the age of criminal responsibility has gained increased attention, and in 2010, the liberal government lowered the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 - a law, which has not been altered in 100 years. This amendment was largely criticized, not only by the opposition, but also by the government’s own Youth Commission.
After the election in 2011, the new, democratically elected government repealed the amendment, and the age of criminal responsibility was yet again raised to the age of 15. The political parties still disagree on the subject matter of the age of criminal responsibility, and nearly a year before the Liberal Party (Venstre) won the election in 2015, they (and other liberal parties) submitted a motion to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12. The motion has once again raised the debate, and a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility may once again become a reality.

Due to the politicians’ powerful positions in society, their language and rhetoric about the subject matter have a strong influence on the way in which we all speak of and understand juvenile delinquency. The aim of this thesis is to provide the reader with new and critical perspectives on the politicians’ rhetoric and arguments in the debate about the age of criminal responsibility in Denmark.
This thesis contains a rhetorical analysis and an argument analysis of carefully selected political articles based on The Toulmin Method, and features from the critical discourse analysis.
First, the thesis contains an analysis of the rhetoric that the liberal parties and the Social Democrats use in their portrayal of children and juveniles who have committed a crime. The first part of the thesis also contains an analysis of the arguments, which the liberal parties and the Social Democrats present in the debate in favor of or against lowering the age of criminal responsibility.

The analysis of the liberal parties and the Social Democrats’ rhetoric and their arguments shows, that the parties portray children and juveniles who have committed a crime very differently. The liberal parties categorize these young people as young criminals, whereas the Social Democrats use the expression children and young people who have committed a crime.

The liberal parties argue in favor of lowering the age of criminal responsibility with the following arguments:

The liberal parties believe that there is a great need for lowering the age of criminal responsibility because there is a large group of 14 year-old criminals, which the current social system cannot handle. They also argue that it is important that young people experience that breaking the law has consequences - regardless of age - and that criminal actions must have consequences, especially for the sake of victims and people's general sense of justice. The liberal parties also argue that a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility will increase the children's legal rights.

Contrary to the liberal parties, the Social Democrats argue against lowering the age of criminal responsibility with the following arguments:

The Social Democrats’ main argument is that children should not be put in jail and should not be placed among adult criminals in the Danish prisons. Instead of legal consequences, the Social Democrats argue, that social services should be involved when children commit crimes. The party also believes that it is more important to focus on preventing crime than to focus on the consequences of crime. The Social Democrats do not believe there is any evidence that juvenile delinquency will be reduced by a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility.

Based on the results of the analysis, it can be argued that the liberal parties portray the children and young people who have committed a crime, in a more negative way than the Social Democrats, which can result in moral panic. By creating moral panic, the liberal parties improve their chances of getting the public to support their motion.
In the liberal parties’ arguments, thoughts from the criminological theory, Broken Windows, can be identified. The theory and the liberal parties both argue that serious crime can be prevented by consistently punishing less serious crimes.
Thoughts from the theory Rational Choice, can also be identified in the liberal parties’ arguments. By lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12, the liberal parties believe that they are increasing the costs of committing a crime. Like the theory, the liberal parties focus on the circumstances surrounding the criminal act rather than the perpetrator's social and personal circumstances.
Contrary to the liberal parties, the Social Democrats focus on the offender’s social circumstances. These thoughts are similar to the line of thinking in the theory Social Bond. The Social Democrats focus more on the sociological aspects of juvenile delinquency than the liberal parties do. In their arguments, the Social Democrats mention social programs where parents, schools, the police, and the social services work together in order to help and prevent that the young people commit another crime.
In the analysis it was also concluded that the liberal parties are generally more conservative in their way of thinking and in their portrayal of children and young people who have committed a crime than the Social Democrats.