In:
Rechtsmedizin, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 30, No. 4 ( 2020-08), p. 233-240
Abstract:
In the present study the significance of sociopedagogic age estimations compared to forensic age assessments that were carried out according to the recommendations of the Study Group on Forensic Age Diagnostics was analyzed. For this purpose, 47 cases were evaluated in which both sociopedagogic age estimations of unaccompanied minor refugees cared for in youth welfare institutions and forensic age assessments were available. In 44 cases in which the institutions considered the refugees to be minors, forensic age assessments certified an age of majority beyond doubt in 12 cases and probable age of majority in 24 other cases. In two cases in which the institutions questioned the age of minority, forensic age assessments certified an age of majority beyond doubt in one case and probable age of majority in the other case. In one case where the institution assumed that the young individual had reached the age of majority, forensic age assessment certified a probable age of majority with possible age of minority. It was not possible to identify objective psychosocial criteria that could be used to assess the age of majority beyond doubt. It can be assumed that the proportion of false positive findings concerning the age of minority is significantly higher in sociopedagogic age estimations than in forensic age assessments. Furthermore, there appears to be a relevant risk of false positive age majority declarations in sociopedagogic age estimations. It was concluded that sociopedagogic age estimations are not a convincing alternative to forensic age assessments.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0937-9819
,
1434-5196
DOI:
10.1007/s00194-020-00403-2
Language:
German
Publisher:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Publication Date:
2020
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1463037-0
SSG:
2
SSG:
2,1
Permalink
