JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA
-Simran Sharma
When discussing the intricacies of adolescent criminality, the age-old argument between nature and nurture assumes a central role. The key point is this: when should people who aren't legally deemed adults be prosecuted as such, especially in circumstances of extreme violence that call for life in prison or possibly the death penalty? Minors are charged with everything from small infractions to serious felonies.
Recent years have seen an increase in juvenile offenses, which highlights how urgent it is to fix flaws in the juvenile judicial system and social machinery. A critical analysis exposes a system that frequently marginalizes and treats children unfairly, apparently unable to provide appropriate reparation. In order to successfully negotiate this difficult terrain, rehabilitation must take precedence over punitive measures, and young offenders must be seen as individuals in need of legal assistance and protection rather than as "bad kids" or victims of stepparent abuse.
Systems of juvenile justice must strike a careful balance between dealing with crimes committed by adolescents and defending their rights. Differentiating between adolescents who need state protection and those who face legal repercussions calls for a sophisticated strategy. The current trend toward a reformative conception of justice rather than retributive measures is essential to developing empathy for young offenders.
Juvenile: Offender against victim
States have two types of children that are dealt with by their juvenile justice systems: first, children who are victims of juvenile offenses and need the state's protection and legal recourse; second, children who violate state law. It is not possible to summon both features at the same time, though. A young person cannot be both the offender and the victim at the same time. The idea of juvenile justice was developed primarily on the premise that children belonged to a different "social class." “Gendered subjectivity”, which was common in the past, and "populist punitiveness," which is prevalent now, should be discarded to create a more cogent perspective that goes beyond using punishment to change juvenile offenders.
When a juvenile's violent behaviors are not appropriately handled by the state and there is a lack of understanding of children's rights, the juvenile justice system's cognitive components are frequently compromised. The most notable solution to this conundrum has been the division of the treatment of juveniles or adolescent offenders from the criminal justice system. When addressing "child or juvenile delinquency," it becomes pivotal that the elemental aspect of it does not deviate from auxiliary components such as jurisdictional scope, socio-legal tradition, judicial proceedings, correctional institutions, and the role of punitive action. The irony of this circumstance, where the law intended to safeguard and preserve children's rights is the one persecuting them into a "violent adult adversarial criminal trial process,". The institutional treatment's ability to enforce both a public deterrent and a reformative measure depends on the mechanisms supporting it, including social experiments, statistics, and studies. Regretfully, the decision presents a dismal picture of this corrective action, which frequently appears to be ineffective rather than effective because of inadequate management and infrastructure. The necessity for separate legal treatment for juvenile offenders is further evidenced by administrative abuse within juvenile justice facilities and the seeming failure of rehabilitation programs. Therefore, it is incorrect to support criminalizing any child who misbehaves. The idea of "restoration, rehabilitation and reform, rather than incarceration and retribution" is the foundation of both state policy and international attitudes toward juvenile justice (Jain, 2020).
It is undeniable that a number of fundamental claims have been presented to be demonstratively false against the efficacy of reformative capacities and treatments; however, there is currently no better enforcement than improving the way juvenile justice laws are implemented, raising public awareness of juvenile criminality, promptly evaluating correctional and reformatory facilities concerning the performance of their inmates, and keeping an eye on behavior and accountability of the necessary domain and presence. The categories of victim and perpetrator are should be considered separately, even though juvenile offenders are typically victims of antecedent events.
Juvenile assessment and administration
Diverse cultural and contextual factors lead to differing definitions of minors and minimum ages, as well as differing interpretations and criteria regarding a minor's criminal liability. Doli incapax, a legal adage that roughly translates to "children being unable to form criminal intentions," is the idea that distinguishes juvenile offenders from adult offenders (Lawren, 2008). Academics have generally agreed that an international ascension should be implemented and adhered to globally, while also considering a relatively low age limit.
This convention must place a high priority on protecting the youth and limiting the involvement of the juvenile justice system. Instead, the primary focus is on juvenile welfare, with reformative theory and redressal serving as the foundation. The Beijing Convention, which listed 30 guidelines in six sections for the handling of juvenile offenders under state legal remedial procedures, provided such a path. This agreement emphasizes the adjudicatory process's requirements, which state that social inquiry reports are a prerequisite for filing lawsuits against minors. While a juvenile offender is accused, factors such as their family, school, social background, and educational record are taken into consideration while determining the appropriate course of action. The latest advancements in criminology indicate that non-institutional approaches are more effective than traditional ones. Consequently, placing minors in a facility ought to be the last resort in the most extreme and infrequent circumstances. In addition to counseling, the arrangement emphasizes the need for rehabilitation centers, other types of vocational training, and community-based support services. While recommendations are provided for research, planning, policy formation, and assessment, it is not addressed at all whether or not serious criminals who have been found guilty of crimes like rape and murder should face distinct legal treatment. It is an issue of ongoing conjecture and careful consideration that has produced a wide range of answers and theories. The moral quandary therefore reinforces the legal question of whether juveniles can be tried as adults, for serious offenses. The fundamental tenet of the juvenile justice system in the majority of states is that serious crimes like rape and murder will not be granted a juvenile appeal.
Most people define a juvenile as someone who has not reached the age of eighteen. If a child over sixteen is found guilty in a gruesome case, their cognitive capacities may be assessed, and they may be tried as adults under the Indian JJA 2015. The maximum punishment is three years in a special home, which is a term of rectification for the harm done to the child's personality. When official records or precise information are unavailable, courts have frequently considered ossification tests in their analysis of age-related inquiries. The new law does not provide a unified norm of age for categorizing and assessing juvenility. It also includes a conditional phrase that, once the seriousness of the offense has been determined, determines the next legal steps. Consequently, the ensuing legislative move lowers the threshold for claiming juvenility in cases of grave acts.
References
Kumar, Shailesh, Shifting Epistemology of Juvenile Justice in India (November 6, 2018). Contexto Internacional, vol. 41(1), Jan/Apr 2019, pp. 113-140, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3327813
Kumari, Ved. “The juvenile justice act 2015-critical understanding.” Journal of the Indian law institute, vol. 58, no. 1, 2016, pp. 83–103. Jstor, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45163062
Janeksela, Galan m. “Descriptive analysis of five juvenile justice systems: united states, Scotland, England, India, and south Africa.” International Review of Modern Sociology, vol. 21, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41420985.
Routiya, Venudhar. “A Critical Study of Children Under Juvenile Justice System in India.” IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering, vol.11, 2016, pp. 81-86.
10.9790/2834-1104038186.
Rani, Seema & Khan, Mohd. “Juvenile Delinquency in India: An Analysis.” International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews. vol. 04, 2023, pp. 221-227.
Lawrence, R., & Hemens, C. (2008). Juvenile Justice: A Text/Reader.
Jain, K. S. R. R. (2020). Effective and Humane Restoration of Prisoners with Special Reference to India. Journal of Victimology and Victim Justice, 3(1), 113-127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2516606920904296
Comments
Post a Comment