What does the amended Juvenile Justice Act mean for underage criminals?

The Union Cabinet on Wednesday decided to amend the Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) giving the Juvenile Justice Board the right to decide whether a juvenile above 16 years of age who has committed a heinous crime should be sent to a juvenile home or tried in a regular court. However, under no circumstances, will a juvenile involved in a heinous crime when tried under the provision of either the JJ Act or the Indian Penal Code be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

The JJA came under sharp focus and vehement criticism when one of the rapists involved in the Delhi gangrape in Dec 2012 was tried as a minor and let off with a light sentence which amounted to a total of three years in a reform home.

What 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.