30 years after the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) and two years after the new EU data protection regime, the social value of forgiveness is not part of these legal instruments. The lack of this value within these legal instruments and the lack of research on the subject of forgiveness in relation to improving the legal position of children require urgent addressing especially when children are exposed to artificial intelligence (AI)-mediated risk profiling practices by Dutch government authorities. Developmental psychologists underline that the erosion of this value could hamper children's ability to develop flourishing human relationships.

This article contributes to fill this niche. It investigates how this value can be enforced in order to benefit children below the age of 12 years that are exposed to risk profiling by Dutch law enforcement and youth care authorities. Children who are victims, witnesses, or falsely accused provide a particular narrowing of focus in this article as these groups cannot be held responsible for their correlations to crime. Strengthening children's legal position is crucial because their position is much weaker compared to adults when it comes to question a risk correlation about themselves. These children correlated to crime, as this paper argues, not only can feel unjustifiably punished, ‘unforgiven’, and hampered in their choices, but can also develop low self-worth and (negative) judgmental attitudes towards others. Based on input from developmental psychology, empirical material, and legal desk research, this article seeks to answer: What remedies can the Law Enforcement Directive (LED) 2016/680, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) offer against the detrimental implications of risk profiling children by the ProKid 12- SI system and the Crime Anticipation System (CAS) in The Netherlands? How can the social value of forgiveness strengthen these instruments and the legal position of children in light of security interests and the best interests of the child? The analysis concludes that the CRC offers the broadest room for incorporating the principle of forgiveness into balancing tests, but certain LED and GDPR prescriptions could also support the value of forgiveness for children, such as the right to erasure. The analysis concludes that incorporating forgiveness into the mentioned legal instruments would not only benefit individual children but would also foster public safety as a result.

在《联合国儿童权利公约》生效30年后以及新的欧盟数据保护制度生效两年之后，宽恕的社会价值就不再属于这些法律文书的一部分。这些法律文书中缺乏这种价值，缺乏与改善儿童法律地位有关的宽恕问题的研究，因此需要紧急解决，尤其是当儿童受到荷兰政府接受人工智能（AI）介导的风险评估做法的影响时当局。发展心理学家强调，这种价值观的削弱可能会阻碍儿童发展蓬勃发展的人际关系的能力。

本文有助于填补这一空白。它研究了如何强制执行此值，以使12岁以下的儿童受益，而这些儿童可能受到荷兰执法部门和青少年护理部门的风险评估。受害者，证人或被错误指控的儿童在本文中特别缩小了关注范围，因为这些群体不能对与犯罪的关联性负责。加强儿童的法律地位至关重要，因为在质疑自己的风险相关性时，与成年人相比，儿童的地位要弱得多。如本文所述，这些与犯罪有关的孩子不仅会感到自己的选择受到不公正的惩罚，“原谅”和受到妨碍，而且对他人的自我价值和（消极）判断态度也会降低。本文基于发展心理学，经验材料和法律案头研究的意见，力求回答：《 2016/680年执法指令》（LED），《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR）和《联合国儿童权利（CRC）反对荷兰ProKid 12-SI系统和犯罪预案系统（CAS）进行风险评估儿童的有害影响吗？鉴于儿童的安全利益和最大利益，宽恕的社会价值如何加强这些手段和儿童的法律地位？分析得出的结论是，CRC为将宽恕原则纳入平衡测试提供了最广阔的空间，但是某些LED和GDPR处方也可能支持儿童的宽恕价值，例如删除权。分析得出的结论是，将宽恕纳入上述法律文书中不仅会使个别儿童受益，还将因此促进公共安全。