After Mattia Ahmet and Atlas: Who will protect the children?

Atlas was 17 years old. On the evening of January 14, 2026, when his mother returned home from work, Atlas was there. A while later, he left the house to go see his brother. He went to a cafe near their home. Not even half an hour had passed when his mother's phone rang. It was Atlas's twin brother calling. The sentence he spoke was one of those that would split a mother's life in two: “Mom, they stabbed my brother, he is dying, come quickly.”

When Gülhan Çağlayan arrived at the scene, she found her son severely wounded. Atlas's heart had stopped, and medical teams were intervening. He was taken to the hospital and underwent surgery, but he could not be saved. A 17-year-old child who had left home just minutes earlier was no longer alive. What remained was his mother's indescribable pain, his twin brother's unfinished childhood, and a massive void that a family would carry for the rest of their lives.

Atlas also had a twin brother. A brother with whom he grew up at the same age, shared the same room, and shared his childhood. The fear he expressed in a letter sent to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) after Atlas's death revealed another dimension of the incident. Describing the pain of losing his twin with the words “I died at that moment too,” Doruk Çağlayan included this shattering question in his letter: “We had dreams, none of them have any meaning anymore. Do you know what I am thinking now? Will I run into the killer who murdered us on a street 5-6 years from now?”

Adding the fear of encountering the perpetrator in the future to the pain of a child losing his brother showed how incomplete it would be to discuss the juvenile justice system solely through the lens of the child perpetrator. Moreover, the pain experienced by Atlas's family did not end with the murder. Threatening messages were sent to the family, various posts were made on social media, and it was discovered that a fake social media account had been opened in Atlas's name. A family that had lost their son had to worry about their own safety while mourning. This process following the murder shows that the protection of victim families must also be a part of the juvenile justice debate. For this reason, Atlas's story is not just the subject of a murder file. When we consider the end of a child's life in a few seconds, the trauma experienced by the remaining family, the fear of the twin brother, and the threats that emerged after the murder together, we see a social problem much larger than just a criminal case. Furthermore, Atlas's story was not the first tragedy Turkey has experienced recently. Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi was only 15 years old. He was subjected to a knife attack in Kadıköy on January 24, 2025. He fought for his life for days but could not be saved. In the case, two children driven to crime were sentenced to 24 years in prison each, and the verdict has passed through appellate review.

Juvenile delinquency is not a process that begins only when a child picks up a knife. Many factors are part of this process, such as the child's relationship with their family, their educational life, their social environment, economic conditions, whether they have encountered substance abuse, the influence of peer groups, and the increasingly prominent use of children by criminal organizations. Therefore, after Atlas's death, it is not enough to just ask, “How many years will the killer be sentenced to?” We also need to ask, “Why did a child reach such a point?”

It is at this exact point that the new law comes into play.

What does the new law bring?

The Law on Amendments to the Child Protection Law and Certain Other Laws, numbered 7593 and published in the Official Gazette on August 18, 2026, introduces significant changes regarding the juvenile justice system. With the law, amendments were made to various statutes, primarily the Turkish Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Child Protection Law, and the Law on the Execution of Penal and Security Measures, and the regulation has entered into force.

One of the most debated topics in the public eye is the increase in penalties to be applied for certain serious crimes, especially regarding children in the 15-18 age group. With the amendment made to Article 31 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the sentencing ranges applied to children for certain crimes requiring aggravated life imprisonment and life imprisonment have been increased. Additionally, a new regulation has been introduced that allows for the non-application of age-based sentence reductions for children in the 15-18 age group regarding intentional killing and certain aggravated assault crimes.

However, the changes brought by the law are not limited to the amount of punishment. Preventing the use of children by criminal organizations, strengthening mechanisms for the protection of children, and adopting a differentiated approach in the trial and execution system according to children's ages and developmental characteristics are also among the important headings of the regulation. With the amendment made to the Criminal Procedure Code, it becomes possible to return an indictment prepared for children under the age of 15 without a social investigation. Thus, it is aimed to prevent the child from being evaluated solely based on the accusation directed at them and to ensure that their social conditions are also taken into account during the trial process.

An important change is also being made regarding execution. Instead of starting the execution of prison sentences for child convicts directly in juvenile education houses, it is envisaged that the execution will begin in closed juvenile penal institutions and that they will be transferred to education houses if it is determined that they are of good conduct. Furthermore, it is regulated that children between the ages of 12 and 18 will be housed in different sections of closed juvenile penal institutions, taking into account their gender, physical development, and the type of crime.

One of the striking headings of the law is the increase in penalties regarding the violation of obligations arising from family law. The prison sentence foreseen for a person who does not fulfill the obligation of care, education, or support arising from family law is being changed from “up to 1 year” to “between 3 months and 2 years.” For mothers or fathers who severely endanger the morality, safety, or health of their child, the penalty limit is also raised from 1 year to 3 years.

This change is very important. Because it does not look at juvenile delinquency only from the moment the crime is committed. It also draws into the discussion what kind of environment the child is raised in within the family, whether care and education obligations are fulfilled, and how the child's safety is protected. It reminds us that the state's intervention in the protection of children should not begin only after the child has committed a crime.

The law also introduces a new responsibility aimed at preventing firearms from falling into the hands of children. A prison sentence of 1 to 3 years is foreseen for a person who causes a weapon to be seized by a child due to keeping it in violation of the duty of care and attention, provided that a more serious crime has not been committed. New prohibitions are also introduced regarding the sale of knives and certain cutting tools to children and their carrying by children.

These regulations point to an important point. Instead of resorting to punishment after a weapon or knife has fallen into a child's hands, it is necessary to prevent that weapon and knife from reaching the child in the first place.

Is increasing the penalty really the solution?

A child becoming vulnerable enough to be used by criminal organizations is not a situation that can be explained solely through that child's personal choices. Therefore, reducing the fight against juvenile delinquency to only the question of “how many years of prison should we give?” may mean intervening at the final stage of the problem. When a child drops out of school, experiences serious problems with their family, meets substances, is drawn into violence, or becomes a target for criminal organizations, how active are the state's protective mechanisms? When a child is driven to crime for the first time, do the social and legal mechanisms that can reintegrate them into society really work? An important aspect of the new regulation in this respect is that it also specifically targets the prevention of children being used by criminal organizations. The approach that the child should not be evaluated solely based on the act they committed, and that their familial, educational, and psychosocial conditions should also be taken into account, shows that a purely punitive policy will not be enough in the fight against juvenile delinquency. Because preventing a child from committing a crime is a much broader issue than determining the punishment to be given after the crime is committed. The state's duty cannot be to see the child only after they have committed a crime.

The real issue in juvenile delinquency is prevention

After a child commits a crime, they face criminal law. However, the fight against juvenile delinquency must begin much earlier. In the family, at school, in social services, in the environment where the child lives, and when necessary, in psychological support mechanisms. Moreover, the issue is not limited to children being driven to crime. Today, how safe people feel on the street, how easy it is to access weapons and knives, and how early children can encounter these tools must also be discussed. The state's duty does not end with catching the perpetrator after a murder has occurred. Ensuring the safety of the street, preventing weapons and knives from falling into the hands of children, preventing criminal organizations from using children, and reaching children at risk in a timely manner are also the state's responsibilities.

The new regulation regarding obligations arising from family law is also quite appropriate in this respect. The aggravation of the sanction against a person who does not fulfill the obligation of care, education, and support for their child, and the introduction of heavier penalties for mothers and fathers who severely endanger the safety and health of their children, are important in terms of moving the intervention in juvenile delinquency to an earlier point. Intervening only in the crime itself without seeing the environment that drives the child to crime can only solve a part of the problem.

The basic needs of children should not be overlooked here either. A child receiving care, protection, attention, love, and feeling a sense of belonging should not be seen only as a part of family life. Although these are needs that are directly important for the child's development and the family is the first and most important environment in meeting these needs, in cases where the family cannot function healthily, the school, social services, and other public institutions need to be more visible in the child's life.

Children also largely learn how to build relationships in their families. It becomes difficult for a child who is constantly criticized, neglected, subjected to violence, or feels worthless within the family to build healthy relationships. School is also important at this point. Children have needs such as being accepted by their friends, belonging to a group, participating in social activities, and finding areas where they can express themselves. This is why the creation of clubs, sports and culture centers, and social activity areas where children can come together safely by municipalities and public institutions should not be seen only as a social service. It should also be considered in terms of establishing an environment that keeps children away from crime.

Especially in processes such as migration and changes in the social environment, children should not be left alone. Problems experienced regarding language, education, peer circles, and adaptation to society can increase a child's vulnerability. In such periods, the support provided by the school, social services, and local governments, alongside family support, is of great importance. Whether the new law will be successful will emerge here. Can we prevent children from falling into the hands of criminal organizations? Can we notice neglect within the family in time? Can we reach a child who has dropped out of education? Can we prevent children from getting their hands on knives and weapons on the street? Can we really protect victim families? Unless the answers to these questions are positive, it is difficult to say that only increasing the amount of punishment will be sufficient against juvenile delinquency.

After Atlas and Mattia Ahmet

Atlas was 17 years old. Mattia was 15. Both were children.

Today, there is a new law in their wake. Penalties have been increased, the trial and execution system regarding children has been reorganized, sanctions regarding obligations arising from family law have been aggravated, and new rules have been introduced to prevent children from being used by criminal organizations and to prevent weapons and knives from reaching children. All of these are important. However, for Atlas's family, no law will bring their son back. For Doruk, no punishment will bring his brother back. For Mattia's family, no regulation will eliminate the pain they have experienced. What the law can do is not to change the past, but to prevent the same story from being experienced again by another family.

The way to do this does not pass through a penal system that only kicks in when a child commits a crime. It is necessary to notice neglect in the family, reach the child who has dropped out of education, prevent criminal organizations from using children, make access to weapons and knives on the street difficult, ensure that children have access to safe social spaces, and protect victim families.