Juvenile Justice Bill: If the nature of the crime is critical, why stop at 16, not 13?

Hats off to us! We have legislated our way out of a tricky matter yet again. The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Juvenile Justice Bill. The focus now shifts from the offender to the offence, and we devote our energy to deciding what constitutes an ‘adult’ crime committed by a juvenile. That he is not mature enough to gauge the consequence of his action can no more be reason for someone between 16 and 18 to be handled with kid gloves. We have built a strong deterrent. The world will soon become a much safer place — the same way it has been after we introduced the provision of the death penalty in case of rape. If some skepticism is already creeping into this piece, it can’t really be helped. Something does not add up. For instance, if the nature of the crime is the prime concern, then why draw the line at 16? We could have considered 14 or 13 as well. Have we left the scope for another amendment open till the time a 13-year-old commits a heinous crime? Some strong advocates of the bill argued that children are maturing much earlier these days. Girls are hitting puberty at 12, and 14-year-old boys of today are far more mature than 14-year-old boys from a decade earlier. Hence, the law must take into consideration this factor. Are we mixing sexual maturity with maturity of the mind, and the hormonal with the sociological? [caption id=“attachment_2550894” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of the juvenile in the Delhi gangrape case being taken to court. AFP[/caption] Almost the entire debate around the Delhi gangrape appeared to revolve around the sexual violence aspect of it. But the gravity of the matter, and also the solution, calls for a clear understanding of the bigger scenario. It goes beyond the victim. It’s natural for hormonally-charged children to be curious about sex and indulge in it for the sake of experimentation. Given their age they won’t be in a position to distinguish between what is normal and what’s not; and what’s legal and what isn’t. A bit of the sociological ecosystem they grow in comes into the picture too. The debate, as some expert rightly points out, has pitted juveniles against women. The logical progression from this would be creating degrees of culpability — for instance, sex with violence or just sex; consensual sex or otherwise; natural or unnatural and so on. Again, the judgment will be left to the wisdom of the emotional voices on the streets. It’s easy for the outrage mob out there to pronounce a kid a criminal and make an example out of him. But the majesty of the law cannot make a sense of vengeance and retribution the yardstick in dispensing justice. In that case, we will be turning into barbaric societies. Let’s shift to the application part of the law. In India, we are good at making laws, but pretty weak at getting them to work on the ground. How do you enforce the new juvenile law? Who decides the gravity of the crime? At the first level, it is the police, of course. The Juvenile Justice Board has to decide within three months whether the juvenile accused should be treated as an adult. It has to base its assessment on the police’s version of the crime. Forget the part that the police can be manipulated, given the way they go through routine inquiries and their lack of training to observe the nuances of such delicate cases, it’s possible they would make a travesty of the Act. There’s also more incentive for them to push younger children into the adult judicial system. There’s a possibility that the law would create more victims by way of complaints in the nature of allegations and accusations. Assuming less mature boys or girls are more prone to indiscretion, we will have more accused in the lowest age brackets. The issue is infinitely complex and it does not lend itself to easy solutions. The most pressing question however, remains: Have we gone the right way by allowing emotion to dictate reason?