Dinesh Kamath's Editorial 'Does Juvenile Justice Act need to be amended?' that was published in Newsband

Does Juvenile Justice Act need to be amended?

Is there a need to amend the Juvenile Justice Act for children between the ages of 16 and 18 when they are accused of rape, murder, and other serious offences? Should the cases involving children of this age-group be transferred to a criminal court? Is this an inappropriate remedy for the problem of juveniles committing grave offences?

It is commonly believed that everyone should be treated as a child until the age of 18. The age has been fixed in law based on studies on child and adolescent behaviour and the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. Hence instead of making juvenile offenders face an adult criminal court they are sent to rehabilitation centres.

These preferences given to the juveniles are many a times used by hooligans to entrap the young offenders as they easily manipulate them asserting the less severe punishment for any heinous act which in turn convert those children after they finish their punishment into a big mafia.

Courts, governments and activists have noted that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, though laudable in intent, had not fully achieved its objectives. The government’s intention to introduce a fresh, comprehensive law that covers both children in conflict with the law and those in need of care and protection may be quite an appropriate response.

But how can we expect those at the bottom of social class to be virtuous and reasonable. The children living in such condition doesn't even get to acquire food, clothes and education, let alone noble values. What government should do is to revamp the Right To Education Act, ensure that the states should be quick on its feet to implement it, improvise the teacher's quality, among other things. Changing the age limit won't create a peaceful and prosperous society, it's just the temporary and futile change to the grave and entrenched problem.

There is logic in objecting to placing juveniles in the same category as adults where the punishments can carry even Death or Life Imprisonment.

The right thing to do is that the gravity of the crime needs to be considered first, irrespective of age of the criminal. The question of improvement by way of counseling does not arise when dealing with brutes. They are to be severely punished not to improve them but as a deterrent to the society.

Underpinned by the welfare philosophy, many juvenile justice measures in many countries are designed to address juveniles’ criminogenic needs. Outcomes of juveniles’ contacts with the police, youth justice conferencing and/or the children’s courts often aim to address needs related to juveniles’ drug use, mental health problems and/or educational, employment or family problems. Youth policing programs, for example, often focus on increasing juvenile offenders’ engagement with education, family or leisure pursuits. India should try and follow these countries.

Juvenile offenders are a heterogeneous population themselves. Sex, age and indigenous status, for example, play a part in shaping juveniles’ offending behaviour and criminogenic needs and these characteristics should be considered when responding to juvenile crime.