Open Forum
New Delhi, 1 January 2016
Heinous Crimes by
Juveniles
NEGLECT OF ADOLESCENT
CARE
By Dr S Saraswathi
((Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
On the last working day, after wasting several days, the
Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill
obviously in response to public outcry and media pressure following the release
of the main offender in Nirbhaya case.
The Bill - an amendment to the existing law - allows trial of juveniles
aged between 16 and 18 years, who commit heinous crimes, as adults. The Juvenile Justice Board will assess the
mental condition of the offender and the Children’s Court will decide whether he is fit to be tried like an
adult.
Heinous crime is defined as a crime that carries a punishment
of seven years of imprisonment or more.
Serious white-collar crimes liable to long-term imprisonment like
forgery and sedition, though not violent, are
also to be considered adult heinous
crimes.
However, no juvenile would be sent to jail directly. If they are sentenced to imprisonment, they
will be sent to Borstal and remain there until they are 21 years old after
which there will be a review of the punishment.
Lowering the age of the juvenile is said to be a measure
founded on the rights of the victims which is as important as that of the
juvenile delinquents. There is a general
notion, though somewhat difficult to agree with, that
punishment for an offender is justice to the victim in any criminal case. This notion has become an important argument
for harsh punishments by advocates of victims. But, awarding punishments has
other socially relevant intentions like
reform and rehabilitation of the
criminals, and establishment of the rule
of law and protection of the citizens. These
should also have some deterrent effect.
Social legislations are made to deal with issues and
problems of the society as a whole. A
singular incident may provoke action, but cannot determine the details of legislations.
It is, therefore, not necessary to ascertain or listen to
the views of victims’ family regarding the quantum of punishment in any case
whatever be the age of the accused or the gravity of the crime. It applies to instances of death penalty
also. The justice system has to look
beyond the victims of concerned cases and decide on the basis of legal position
and social consequences.
This enactment will not have retrospective effect and so the Executive will not face complications in
its enforcement. The Supreme Court also
refused to stay the release of Nirbhaya
juvenile criminal as demanded by the Delhi Commission for Women as there is no
law under which he could be retained. He will
be provided with post-release rehabilitation care to help him reintegrate with
the society.
Generally, a person below 12 years is called a child, one
between 12 and 18 years is regarded as an adolescent, and one between 18 and 30
years as a young person, and those between 30 and 50 years as a middle-aged
person. Before the enactment of Juvenile
Justice Act 1986, a child between 7 and 18 or 21 years in some States in
accordance with the Children Acts of the States, who violated law, was considered as a juvenile delinquent.
The 1986 Act defined “juvenile” as a boy below 16 years or a
girl below 18 years of age. This was
amended in 2000 to determine the age of juvenile delinquent uniformly for
males and females as 18 years. This
amendment had helped the youngest criminal in the Nirbhaya case to escape adult treatment.
The urgency for re-examining the question of age couldn’t be
ignored in view of increasing number of
reported cases of juvenile crimes including heinous ones like rape. Even the National Crime Research Bureau,
whose statistics are generally believed to be gross underestimation due to non-reporting
and suppression of several cases, has noted steep increase in crimes. Cases of rape by juveniles by age-group numbered 198 for below 16 years in the year
2000, 399 for below 18 years in 2001, and 1,149 for below 18 years in
2011. So also, murder by juveniles shot
up from 267 in 2000 for below 16 years to 888 for below 18 years in 2011.
Still, the present amendment didn’t have a smooth passage. Some MPs wanted to refer it to a Select
Committee for further deliberation. The
bill was listed twice in the winter
session, but couldn’t be taken up due to continuous disruptions in the House indicating lack of interest in this amendment on the part of some members. There were also differences of opinion within some parties that were openly expressed.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee which examined the bill
before it was passed by the Lok Sabha, pointed
to some misleading data on
juvenile crimes. With the exception of
the Left Parties, all other parties supported the bill.
Though the argument for lowering the age factor in dealing with heinous crimes is strong, it cannot also be denied that the government and society have to accept
failure on their part in bringing up children and adolescents . Child Welfare Committees are not functioning
efficiently. Adequate Juvenile Justice
Boards are also lacking. Special homes do not have knowledge and ability to cope with
delinquents.. Instances of boys running
away from correctional homes have become
common.
All these point to the need for firm action to prevent juvenile crimes and the futility of
lenient treatment to juvenile delinquents after commitment of serious crimes.
There is no common approach to attribution of criminal
responsibility in different countries.
The age factor ranges from 7 to 18 years. The juvenile’s culpability and the punishment
is determined according to the nature and gravity of the crime, and the level
of maturity and discretion of the
offender as perceived by the courts. The
age of criminal responsibility is 7 in Switzerland
and Ireland, 13 in France,
14 in Australia, Germany, Italy
in Europe. Both in the UK
and USA,
juveniles who committed heinous crimes
like rape were prosecuted like adults. Prosecutors
were seen pushing to try more juveniles committing murder as adults.
In the 1990s, it is noted that the practice of charging
young people as adults gained momentum in America and between 1990 and 2010,
youth in adult jails increased by 230%.
Since 2005, youth advocacy groups took up the cause of juveniles and succeeded
in bringing legislations in about 30 States in the US to make it harder to prosecute
and sentence juveniles like adults.
According to UN recommendations, no child up to the age of
12 can be held responsible for any criminal act. Till completion of 18 years, no adolescent
can be tried in adult courts.
Adolescents are said to be the most neglected group
worldwide. The age-group 10-19 is
officially recognized as adolescent in India and this covers children
between 10-14 years.
Textbook differences between crime and delinquency are also
becoming more irrelevant. That anti-social
acts of juveniles lack specific intention or purpose, are unplanned and
unorganized are not always true. We can no longer hold on to the belief that 16-18 age-group
are still children unaware of the consequences of their actions.
In this age of information, childhood and adolescence appear
to have fallen to adult life sooner than the onset of technical adulthood. Children’s world is shrinking yielding place
to adult world, thanks to communication revolution. “U”
certificate has lost its meaning and
children’s films have become rare. It
may be a reason contributing to adult crimes by adolescents – a sociological
development that has to be addressed by law makers with the expertise of social
psychologists.
Our endeavour must be to evolve a juvenile justice system
that will hold the juveniles responsible for their actions, ensure the safety
of the community, and make the society responsible to bring up productive,
capable, and accountable citizens.
In short, society must pay special attention to adolescent care.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|