Some crimes are so henious, that it is impossible to argue that the perpetrator did not know what he/she was doing. And the Delhi gangrape is one such case. In this case, where the accused was not onl
y in a position of power, but was also responsible for barbaric acts like driving an iron rod into the victims body, he ought to be tried as an adult, because it is clear that he not only knew what he was doing, but was also reveling in it. And the law should be amended to make allowances for that. One possible suggestion that has already come up in the media, is that rather than setting a blanket minimum age, treatment to the juvenile offender can vary depending on mental growth and capacity to understand criminal responsibility. This makes much more sense, rather than treating a 17-year-old who rapes on par with a ten-year-old offender.
Juvenile law after much deliberation was brought about in India to prevent juveniles from being classified as adults when facing the justice system. Juveniles, like others in prisons, are entitled to
an attempt at being rehabilitated rather than being thrown into a jail and throwing away the key. By amending the law, that right is taken away and assumes that there is no scope for rehabilitation.
The law is always made for a majority of cases and in this case, while it may seem horribly wrong it still means the juvenile has to be tried as per the existing law. An isolated case cannot be the sole argument to amend a law, it requires further study and only if proven that it merits a change, should it even be considered. At most the period of rehabilitation can be increased but to make drastic amendments to the law just to cater to the outrage over this single incident would be a folly.