Chronological age and crime: A review of how Swedish Courts evaluate age evidence

• Swedish Courts’ interpretation of age evidence is studied using legal case analysis. • Age estimations are most commonly used for sentencing issues (18/21 years) • The Courts interpret age evidence differently for violent and non-violent crimes. • The research highlights both methodological and human sources of error. In criminal cases, age estimations are not only commonly occurring but also tremendously influential e.g. for determining whether an individual is old enough to be held responsible as well as the appropriate sentencing. In this research we review 61 Swedish cases focusing on the 15, 18 and 21 years thresholds, which entailed varying forensic, oral and documentary age evidence. The findings suggest e.g. that age estimations are most commonly used for sentencing issues (18/21 years) and that forensic age evidence is more influential than other types of age evidence. When the case concerned a violent crime, the odds that the Courts concluded that an individual was 18 years or older were 38 times higher when there was supporting forensic evidence supporting, while no corresponding trends were seen for oral and documentary age evidence. The research highlights both methodological and human sources of error to be addressed in research and legal practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science & Justice
Published
2026-02-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2026.101410
Primary Topic
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Chronological age and crime: A review of how Swedish Courts evaluate age evidence

Moa Lidén, Marie Allen
Science & Justice
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
article

Chronological age and crime: A review of how Swedish Courts evaluate age evidence

Moa Lidén, Marie Allen
article en

Abstract

• Swedish Courts’ interpretation of age evidence is studied using legal case analysis. • Age estimations are most commonly used for sentencing issues (18/21 years) • The Courts interpret age evidence differently for violent and non-violent crimes. • The research highlights both methodological and human sources of error. In criminal cases, age estimations are not only commonly occurring but also tremendously influential e.g. for determining whether an individual is old enough to be held responsible as well as the appropriate sentencing. In this research we review 61 Swedish cases focusing on the 15, 18 and 21 years thresholds, which entailed varying forensic, oral and documentary age evidence. The findings suggest e.g. that age estimations are most commonly used for sentencing issues (18/21 years) and that forensic age evidence is more influential than other types of age evidence. When the case concerned a violent crime, the odds that the Courts concluded that an individual was 18 years or older were 38 times higher when there was supporting forensic evidence supporting, while no corresponding trends were seen for oral and documentary age evidence. The research highlights both methodological and human sources of error to be addressed in research and legal practice.

Science & JusticeVol. 66(2)
Uppsala University (SE), University College London (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Chronological age and crime: A review of how Swedish Courts evaluate age evidence — Moa Lidén, Marie Allen · Science & Justice (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS