Written By: Nirmalya Dutta | Updated : August 6, 2013 11:42 AM IST
There is widespread disbelief at the sixth rapist-murderer getting off on a lighter sentence than the other five because of his alleged juvenile status. Of course there's actually no way to determine whether he even is a juvenile or not because the school records which the Juvenile Justice Board is using to determine his age is based on hearsay if recent media reports are to be believed. A TOI report suggests that even the mother of the child doesn't know when he was born and the father simply told the principal of his school that he was six or seven years old. Using this basis the principal set the youth's date of birth to be June 4, 1995 which would make the accused 17 years, six months and 12 days old at the time of the incident. The Juvenile Justice Board has always ruled out seeking an age-determination test because the school certificates are deemed to be enough evidence!
Let's forget for a moment the doubts we have about the accused's age and assume he is 17 years old. Does a 17 year old have less reasoning power than an 18 year old? What great mental development will there be in the next one year? Is he less capable of understanding the ramifications of his actions one year before?
Was he mentally unfit to understand the ramifications of his action?
Developmental paediatrician Dr Leena Deshpande says that it's simply not possible that the sixth accused was incapable of understanding what he was doing unless he was mentally ill (which considering the heinous nature of his crime might be possible). 'A normal child's thoughts usually become more organised in the 11-16 years phase. By the time he/she reaches the age of 16, the person is perfectly capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions and what they're doing,' she says. So from a medical and psychological point of view, 16 is an age where a person has reached a level of maturity. Dr Deshpande also added that considering the current social climate and the things children are being exposed to, more and more children are behaving and talking like adults and there is a need to re-think the juvenile age.
So, who exactly is a 'juvenile'?
The definition of a juvenile varies from country to country. In India, the age of a juvenile (both boys and girls) was set at eighteen years of age by the Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) 2000 to conform to the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child. This would mean that all juvenile offences would be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board and not the regular courts. This is done because juvenile criminals were often treated as harshly as adults and would turn into hardened criminals. This act looked to end child labour, reform marriageable age and improve the lives of children throughout the country. The act was passed only after consulting psychologists, legal experts and others but it seems that it has failed us badly. The law left many loopholes which would be exploited time and again. The original act doesn't have a word about rape or murder being committed by juveniles and it didn't seem to occur to the legal eagles that perhaps juveniles who had crossed puberty were capable of rape at all! Under the law, juvenile offenders who have committed heinous crimes (rape and murder) can only be sent to a 'place of safety' for a maximum period of three years.
So what can be done?
Setting a simple number as an age to signify maturity isn't the solution. Minor laws vary across the world. In the UK, 16-year-olds are allowed to drink beer and cider, have sex and be detained for longer periods for more heinous crimes. They are allowed to make most of their decisions and even provided with contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The USA defines its minors as under-18, but the laws vary from state to state. They however have punishments like life imprisonment for serious acts which are 'unspeakably sad' even if they are committed by a human being who is a 'work in progress'.
The Justice Verma report suggests that age of juveniles shouldn't be lowered but a media report suggests that Centre is all set to go forward and reduce the juvenile age to 16. This would however lead to various other issues. Defending the panel's recommendations, Prof Shanta Sinha, chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, argued 'it will be difficult to reduce the age bar as India has signed and ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child where the age limit for juveniles has been fixed at 18 years'.
A knee-jerk reaction like this could actually do more harm than good and bending to populist sentiment is very dangerous for a government. What the law should instead do is provide the scope to judge each case on its own merit instead of setting ceilings to define minors or majors. That is the only way to create an environment where juveniles get the true treatment they deserve.
Disclaimer: The content on TheHealthSite.com is only for informational purposes. It is not at all professional medical advice. Always consult your doctor or a healthcare specialist for any questions regarding your health or a medical condition.
