INTRODUCTION
Crime is an activity that can be done by any person. In India, crimes done by juveniles or children are generally increasing day by day. Children are the underclass of society. Their behavior depends on their nourishment i.e., how their family raises them. Due to an increase in the number of juvenile crimes, the question arises that at what age juveniles can be held criminally responsible? As we can see that due to this problem, India has moved from the welfare model of juvenile justice to the Crime Control Model of Justice in 2015. In 2015, the Nirbhaya gangrape case shook the whole country. As a result, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Bill, 2015, was enacted. This act allowed trying the juveniles between 16-18 years for offenses committed by them.
Similarly, other countries modified their laws.Would making them liable at an early age be a good option or not?
This article has analyzed the age of criminal responsibility in India, its critical analysis, comparison of juvenile laws in India concerning other countries, opinions, and suggestions,and finally the conclusion.
IS INDIA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM JUSTIFIED?
The criminal justice system in India is majorly governed by two legislations i.e., Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). According to IPC, age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. An offense committed by the child of age between 7 years and 12 years will not be punishable if the judge is of the opinion that the child is not mature enough to understand the consequences of his actions[1]. An offense committed by a child below seven years of age is immune to criminal prosecution[2]. Hence, a child or juvenile in India is one who has not completed 18 years of age. India follows this age criterion because India is a signatory to the international convention United Nations Convention on Rights of Child, which bounds India to define juvenile to be under 18.
Enacted after so many years, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act of 2015 followed the same old practice of considering human beings into children and adults with an exception. The exception added is that any juvenile within the age group 16-18 would be tried as an adult in case of any serious offense under the law.
But the question in today’s time is that whether the age of juvenile to be held criminally responsible be increased or decreased or remain the same? In India, the Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted with the motive of reforming juveniles and many child rights activists believe that reformation is the better approach to prevent crime amongst children without imprisoning them. This thought of reformation only exists on paper in India. There is no balance between juvenile offenders and remand homes, access to quality counseling, and very poor support for juveniles. Hence, the reformation process is insufficient in making juveniles good citizens and day by day, children are involved in bigger crimes after coming out of jail. Thus, it is an imminent necessity to improve the infrastructure and reformatory process that this act aims to provide juveniles. Supreme Court has time and again provided guidelines to follow for the proper implementation of the act which should be abided by without fail. Suppose this act gets implemented smoothly, some loose provisions will become stringent. In that case, it will serve the purpose and decrease the rate of crime.
COMPARISON OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF INDIA WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
The above analysis of the juvenile justice system in India proves that it is incapable of functioning better and bringing law and order into society. There is a need to bring certain reforms to improve the infrastructure or make an amendment in the legislation to lower the age of juveniles to be held criminally responsible.
In the United States, the maximum age of juveniles is different in each state. Some states have no minimum age for criminal responsibility and in most of the states capacity-related test is applied[3]. But when a juvenile commits any heinous crime, the state can forfeit some of his liberties to help him attain a mature understanding of his humanity. They try the juvenile in adult courtrooms in case of heinous crimes. But in India, a juvenile involved in the Delhi Gang rape case was released with no penalty.
In Australia, a juvenile is defined as a person aged 10-17 years except in Queensland[4]. Australia, the USA, the UK, and some other countries follow some international conventions. India can also adopt this approach to bring to books hardened criminals devoid of any possibility to reform.
In England and Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is ten[5]. They have a separate act called the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, under which children accused of crimes are tried. Children are also tried in adult courts. Japan and the Netherlands give life imprisonment to children who have committed a heinous or grave crime with maturity and intention. Several countries such as Denmark, Hungary, and Germany provide for imprisonment of 7 years or sometimes half the punishment given to adults in grave offenses.
Examples of different countries show that the law should change with a dynamic society since maturity amongst children and the mental development of a child is increasing day by day. Indian law regarding this should also be reconsidered.
VIEWPOINT ON JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE REPORT
Justice Verma Committee report takes a sincere effort to resolve the injustice happening in society by giving some contentions and assertions in their report. Nonetheless, there are some arguments given by the committee that can be countered.
The committee report says that if any person at the age of 16 were given punishment for imprisonment, he would be released from jail somewhere at the age of mid-30s.[6] There is very little chance of that person emerging as a reformed person who will not commit the same crime. But, if any person of age will not be allowed for punishment, they will commit heinous crimes without any liability. That will go against the concept of justice and civilized society. This argument of the committee also goes against the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, where it is written that individuals aged 16-18 convicted of committing a heinous crime will be kept separately if he is too dangerous to be kept in a juvenile home.
The committee also relied on a paper written by Laurence Steinberg and concluded that the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles should not be reduced to 16. But the committee had overlooked the point given by Lawrence Steinberg that a basic intellectual ability reaches adult levels before psychosocial maturity at the age of 16. Since the child reaches the adult level, his intellect and maturity level should be considered in case of heinous crimes and he should be punished accordingly. But this point has been overlooked by the Verma committee report by relying upon the principle that “it is better to take the risk to save guilty person rather than punish the innocent one.”
OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS
Crimes committed by juveniles in India are increasing and legislation currently in practice is not sufficient to deal with the situation. Law is protecting those juveniles also which are capable of understanding the consequences of their action. They are the bad elements of society and hence they should be held criminally responsible. Saving the juveniles will breach Article 21 of every individual to live in a society free of crimes, which means the Government is protecting the criminal tendency of criminals and not safeguarding its citizens. Beijing Rules allows the signatories to make special provisions for serious and grave offenses.[7] Every law should have a deterrent effect. If a law begins to lose the element of deterrence, it will no longer stay effective.
The Government can consider altering the age of a child to 14 years in case of grave offenses following the examples of a few other countries. This will create a deterrent effect in children’s minds, and they can be saved from the hostile environment of prisons and remand homes. Also, remand homes are insufficient; alternative options should be taken by the Government to improve the situation according to the country’s socio-economic circumstances. Emotional and mental maturity along with the sociological psyche should be considered before the formulation of any statute regarding juveniles.They can be sentenced to detention in juvenile justice centers. However, they should be transferred to adult prisons once they attain the age of 18 if the sentence is still pending. This similar practice is also followed in Australia.
CONCLUSION
Taking all the above elements into consideration, it can be concluded that India is indeed facing an increase in youth crime despite a lesser youth crime rate than in other countries. It is easy to reform juveniles when they first show anti-social behavior rather than eventually becoming hardened criminals. India should allow more serious punishment or longer periods of duration for children committing serious offenses in the bracket of 16-18 years. Special provisions can be made under the juvenile act itself. Maturity and development of the mind of the offender should be used as a yardstick in certain cases. Making punishments stringent will affect certain child rights such as education. Still it is the need of the hour, and India cannot see more incidents like Nirbhaya.The law needs to be amended, or if not that, then the loopholes of the legislation need to be adequately grounded and thenceforth covered, the inability of which would lead to grave consequences.
By-
Dharmashastra National Law University
[1] Indian Penal Code, s.83, (1860).
[2] Indian Penal Code, s.82, (1860).
[3] Minimum Ages of Criminal Responsibility in the Americas, Child Rights International Network, https://archive.crin.org/en/home/ages/Americas.html
[4] Simon Creek and Siobhan Nims, Australia: Quick Facts: The age of criminal responsibility in Australia and youth incarceration, Mondaq, 30th July 2020, https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/971112/quick-facts-the-age-of-criminal-responsibility-in-australia-and-youth-incarceration.
[5] Helen Pidd, Josh Halliday Maya Wolfe-Robinson and Nazia Parveen, Age of Criminal Responsibility must be held, The Guardian, (4th November 2019, 16.00 GMT), https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/04/age-of-criminal-responsibility-must-be-raised-say-experts.
[6] Report of the committee on Amendments to Criminal Law, Jan 23, 2013, pg. 253, https://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Justice%20verma%20committee/js%20verma%20committe%20report.pdf.
[7] United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”), Rule 4, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/beijingrules.pdf.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by the website owner.