The alleged role of minor and assault in Delhi gang rape case demand a new reform
for redefining the age of juvenile in our legal system but argument is laid that
especial laws should be made to treat juvenile crime in our country:-
The debate over the alleged role of the juvenile in the
recent rape and murder case rage the capital even today, at the heart of the contention is that one out of the six accused of is a minor and should be treated as an
adult keeping in mind the gravity of offence
 |
| Juvenile |
committed by him, the controversy
over the juvenile demands for redefinition of the age in criminal cases. A s of
now the accused below the age of 18 is considered to be a juvenile and is
treated under juvenile justice Act, the legal definition of juvenile is found
under section 2(k) of Juvenile justice (care and protection) Act, 2000, which
states a juvenile or ‘child’ means a person who has not completed 18 years of age.
The age of adulthood
for male in India was set 16 earlier, but later India redefined the Convention
on the Right of child in 1992, and in the subsequent drafting of the JJA in
2000, it was raised to 18.“The age of 18 was set based on consensus among countries as
large majority had set the age of maturity at 18. This is also based on
specific development stage of child”, says Vandhana Kandhari, child safeguard expert Unicef India.
As the rape and consequent death of the sufferer, there has
been an outcry for lowering the age to 16.On Monday supreme court agreed to look into the petition
filed by two lawyers that seek to lower
the age of who would be considered juvenile to from 18 to 16, a complete
reversal of change that took place in 2000.But not everybody is convinced that lowering the age would be
a wise move. Many, on the other hand hold that if judged as juvenile the
accused would get away with a milder punishment that is of three year of
imprisonment in Remand House for what is clearly a heinous crime...As an Adult under the law he can get up to Death sentence, as
a minor he will at most get three year jail in reform house, and then be monitored
on his release.Considering the difference in punishment, there is demand
from some quarter that a accused be tried as an adult, but Indian law doesn’t allow such exception to be made. At the best, one can
consider a clause in section 16(1) in the JJA, which says that if a minor above
the age of 16 years commits a crime that the juvenile justice board feels is “ of so serious in nature or that his conduct and behavior has
been such that it would not be in his interest or the interest of the other
juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such a a
manner as it think fit shall report the case for the order of the state
government”.
Legal Expert also stress
the one particular incident, how monstrous, cannot be the basis for the change
in law. Some also voice that the fear that sending 16 years old convicts to
jail- as opposed to reform homes where they are placed when a crime has been
proved- can turn them into hardened criminals.Assuming that the person at the age 16 is sent to life imprisonment,
he would be released sometime in his 30s.In this case there would be little assertion that the convict
would emerge as a reformed person, who will not commit the same crime that he
was imprisoned for.The Juvenile Justice Board is staffed with competent people
who can examine the detail of a particular case and come to a conclusion
whether exception should be made. We are reformative country and should attempt
to reform people, lowering the age will not solve the problem it encourage the
child to get sucked into criminal life.This is 21st century and we should give one chance
to change according to singh.
0 comments:
Post a Comment