Firm Convictions?: Unpicking Framings of Child Terrorism Offenders

No longer confined to conflict theatres nor the periphery of adult-led organisations, recent years have seen a sharp rise in domestic cases of independent teenage attack-plotters, self-initiated travellers to terrorist-held territory, and digital extremist content creators. Despite this trend in organic, self-directed offending, children’s motivations for terrorist engagement are frequently exceptionalised through narrative frames that either over- or under-emphasise their agency. Through analysis of an original dataset of 43 minors convicted of terrorism offences in England and Wales since 2016, this article examines how children are understood as subjects in their offending, and how framings problematise their capacity for independent, rational, and agentic terroristic motivation. Focus is placed on the construction and framing of motivations through analysis of the established “mitigating” and “aggravating” factors considered in their judicial proceedings: maturity, ideological commitment, thrill-seeking, unintentionality, socialisation, and adverse childhood experiences and neurodiversity. The article argues for more nuanced understanding (and reporting) of child terrorism-related activities that take a holistic, individualised, and youth-centred approach to questions of agency, subjecthood, and capacity in their motivations.