Juvenile Justice Act reforms

[raj_pol]

I posted the same because it is a big change from the current rules that exist in our country? How does my fellow TE folks feel about.

I know that this is can be a controversial topic and giving logical explanations one way or the other would be better than indulging in a slinging match.

For those who do not know...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahom...ndhi-calls-change-law-juvenile-criminals.html

My view on this is that a person should be tried based on the severity of the crime. If you are old enough to kill, you are old enough to be tried.

 

[renegade]

What is the logic behind keeping the age as 18 for crime and punishment? That the person is not old enough to understand the implications and consequences? How come a teenager let alone a 16 year old not know that raping and murdering is a crime.

 

[asingh]

Just a loop-hole.

 

[max_demon]

What is the logic behind keeping the age as 18 for crime and punishment? That the person is not old enough to understand the implications and consequences? How come a teenager let alone a 16 year old not know that raping and murdering is a crime.

:O Raping and murdering is a CRIME ??

 

[JMP]

What is the logic behind keeping the age as 18 for crime and punishment? That the person is not old enough to understand the implications and consequences? How come a teenager let alone a 16 year old not know that raping and murdering is a crime.

It is not about whether or not they know it is a crime, it is about giving them the opportunity to correct themselves.
This is no comparison, but still, say you drive carelessly once and cause a death/grievous injury, shall we put you in prison for 18-30 years ? (Just an argument, please don't take offense)

Also, in case of poor / homeless teens - who is there to guide them in such a crucial stage of life ? They are gaining physical strength, having tons of hormonal changes and with the media and every other outlet feeding them that both violence and sex is the 'cool' stuff, they become susceptible to the negative forces of society.

The purpose of punishment should be to reform and not to create more hardened criminals.
Education is the only thing that can solve such problems.

A small percentage of teenagers commit rape and all these femi-nazi organizations come together and discuss the revision of juvenile definition.....but there are 10 times more adult, educated women misusing 498A, accusing false rape, but that is OK isn't it ?

 

[asingh]

Also, in case of poor / homeless teens - who is there to guide them in such a crucial stage of life ? They are gaining physical strength, having tons of hormonal changes and with the media and every other outlet feeding them that both violence and sex is the 'cool' stuff, they become susceptible to the negative forces of society.

Sorry to say, it almost seems you are exonerating them..!

 

[killmastern3]

It is not about whether or not they know it is a crime, it is about giving them the opportunity to correct themselves.
This is no comparison, but still, say you drive carelessly once and cause a death/grievous injury, shall we put you in prison for 18-30 years ? (Just an argument, please don't take offense)

Also, in case of poor / homeless teens - who is there to guide them in such a crucial stage of life ? They are gaining physical strength, having tons of hormonal changes and with the media and every other outlet feeding them that both violence and sex is the 'cool' stuff, they become susceptible to the negative forces of society.

The purpose of punishment should be to reform and not to create more hardened criminals.
Education is the only thing that can solve such problems.

A small percentage of teenagers commit rape and all these femi-nazi organizations come together and discuss the revision of juvenile definition.....but there are 10 times more adult, educated women misusing 498A, accusing false rape, but that is OK isn't it ?

U do have a valid point there. For me, these cases need to be tried on a case to case basis. A juvenile with violent tendencies and history of violent conduct should be tried as an adult.

 

[JMP]

Sorry to say, it almost seems you are exonerating them..!

Most certainly not. I am just trying to say that when juveniles commit crime, a part of that blame comes on us too - as a society we have failed our young. They have a whole life ahead of them, the best approach would be to take measures to correct them, rather than turn them into hardened criminals by putting them in mainstream prisons. What's the benefit of the latter ? They will learn from even more hardened criminals - What do you expect will happen when they are released ?

My bone of contention is with the Women's Organizations - they are so hypocritical. Less than 1% of all rapes are committed by juveniles, for this they are hell bent on changing the legal definition of "juvenile". Changing the definition can have widespread repercussions Eg - a 17 year old boy having consensual sex with a girl, under the promise of marriage can be tried as an adult in court and sent to prison for life. Do you believe 17 year olds even know what the true meaning of marriage is ? They would just want to have sex. (There can be many such scenarios)

The Delhi juvenile should be punished, punished well, but did you read about his life, the circumstance in which he grew up ?

My firm belief is that what differentiates a good/civilized person from a criminal/uncivilized is the way/environment in which we grow up, the things we learn when we are young. Good can only be expected out of them when you show them what good is.

So I would like to give every "kid" who comes from backgrounds such as poverty, orphanage, uneducated - a second chance, a chance to see the good in society. I am not saying don't punish them, just saying don't try them as / put them with full blown criminals.

U do have a valid point there. For me, these cases need to be tried on a case to case basis. A juvenile with violent tendencies and history of violent conduct should be tried as an adult.

I completely agree.

 

[asingh]

Most certainly not. I am just trying to say that when juveniles commit crime, a part of that blame comes on us too - as a society we have failed our young. They have a whole life ahead of them, the best approach would be to take measures to correct them, rather than turn them into hardened criminals by putting them in mainstream prisons. What's the benefit of the latter ? They will learn from even more hardened criminals - What do you expect will happen when they are released ?

Why should the blame come on us..? A juvenile is not a child per say...! They know the norms of society. Can they not understand a "NO"; when a girl is refusing and still penetrate..? I fail to see, how society has to teach someone the meaning of NO. There are a lot of poor people out there, living on the fringe of society, are all of them committing crimes. My issue is: the 17 year old, CHOSE to do what he did. That is about it. They are adults. Here: we are treating them like children, and mollycoddling them and spoiling them further. If they can commit a crime of an adult, they can quite well do in prisons with adults.

My bone of contention is with the Women's Organizations - they are so hypocritical. Less than 1% of all rapes are committed by juveniles, for this they are hell bent on changing the legal definition of "juvenile". Changing the definition can have widespread repercussions Eg - a 17 year old boy having consensual sex with a girl, under the promise of marriage can be tried as an adult in court and sent to prison for life. Do you believe 17 year olds even know what the true meaning of marriage is ? They would just want to have sex. (There can be many such scenarios)

Honestly, if someone knows the meaning of sex, they would/should know what marriage is. If someone is using marriage as a passage to sex, they quite well know what sex is. What those women are doing is just fine. We men, should learn to keep our pecker in our pants. And start treating women in a sane and normal manner.

The Delhi juvenile should be punished, punished well, but did you read about his life, the circumstance in which he grew up ?

Ya, I did. Should I feel sorry for him...? Even Dawood Ibrahim never had a good life as a child. This is like some Bollywood logic. Sorry.

My firm belief is that what differentiates a good/civilized person from a criminal/uncivilized is the way/environment in which we grow up, the things we learn when we are young. Good can only be expected out of them when you show them what good is.

Environment plays a big role, yes I agree. But we as humans in society get our chance. If we let it go, then we got to pay up and bear the repercussions. Not be pardoned off, due to age.

So I would like to give every "kid" who comes from backgrounds such as poverty, orphanage, uneducated - a second chance, a chance to see the good in society. I am not saying don't punish them, just saying don't try them as / put them with full blown criminals.

They are full-blown criminals. Rape is the worst crime out there...! They sure know what they are doing. It is not in absence of mind.

 

[JMP]

^ The problem with an attitude like this is that is that the society absolves itself or all responsibility. Your logic is that you will let a cactus grow in your garden, by failing to weed it out and then blame it for pricking you during your walk ?

Honestly, if someone knows the meaning of sex, they would/should know what marriage is. If someone is using marriage as a passage to sex, they quite well know what sex is. What those women are doing is just fine. We men, should learn to keep our pecker in our pants. And start treating women in a sane and normal manner.

Who asked the girl to agree to have sex ? She should have known better than to believe a blind promise. If she knows the meaning of marriage, then she should know the meaning of sex too. How about this argument ?

Say I turn the tables around, will you send the girl to prison for 18-30 years saying she raped the boy ?

Do you know that in India, by law a woman cannot rape a man ? Even in case of extra-marital affairs, a woman cannot be punished (she is considered a victim) , but a man is punished. No proof is required to arrest a man for rape, and it is non bailable. What if an angry girlfriend accuses a teenager of rape ?

You still believe the Women's Organization are right ?

A juvenile is not a child per say

Not an adult either !
Are you telling me that you as a teenager behaved as a responsible adult would ? (In context to your circumstances of course) you followed all the rules ? Your parents / elders never had to correct you ? (Nobody was there to correct him at any step, the effect cascaded)

Why should the blame come on us..?; the 17 year old, CHOSE to do what he did

Would you be the exact same person you are right now if you were born to and grew up - to a dictator ? Or to a trafficker / terrorist ?

Would you have the same manners and courtesy toward women if you were poor and uneducated ?

Choice is not a singular decision. Its a option you take in a circumstance based on your previous experiences.
A part of the blame comes on us because, as a society it is our job to provide for and show our young the right way in life.

I urge you to develop some compassion to those who had no one to guide them growing up.

 

[raj_pol]

@JMP My simple two cents. You are right that environment effects what you eventually become and I am sorry for those who divert from what is right. However once you have chosen the wrong path for whatever the reasons may be I would want laws to protect me from such folks. To your sensibilities it may seem wrong but in the case of Delhi, the dead girl would have probably agreed with me.

 

[asingh]

See my responses below:

^ The problem with an attitude like this is that is that the society absolves itself or all responsibility. Your logic is that you will let a cactus grow in your garden, by failing to weed it out and then blame it for pricking you during your walk ?

Society is not absolving itself from any responsibility. It is the role of society to take these type of elements and remove them from our surroundings. Your cacti analogy should be thus: I will let them grow in my garden. But tomorrow if they jump up and attack me, I will mow them down, or fence them in. The girl did not "walk into" the boys, that they shoved up rods in her innards..! There is a difference. The boys were not reactive, but active. Does that not make sense to you.

Who asked the girl to agree to have sex ? She should have known better than to believe a blind promise. If she knows the meaning of marriage, then she should know the meaning of sex too. How about this argument ?

Are you not living in India..?. We are not a promiscuous society (at least not yet) like USA. Girls just do not go out and have sex, on dates and outings. Having sex usually translates to, getting married. Basically, the guy is fooling the girl, to hustle into her pants, and then leave her standing there. It happens each time.

Say I turn the tables around, will you send the girl to prison for 18-30 years saying she raped the boy ?

Basically: no it does not work like that. Majority of the times, the girls are fooled. By our society ruled by men. Sorry to say.

Do you know that in India, by law a woman cannot rape a man ? Even in case of extra-marital affairs, a woman cannot be punished (she is considered a victim) , but a man is punished. No proof is required to arrest a man for rape, and it is non bailable. What if an angry girlfriend accuses a teenager of rape ?

Good. We men deserve to be tamed. Women-hood has suffered far too much in this begotten land...! Accept it.!

You still believe the Women's Organization are right ?

Yups...!

Not an adult either !

But committed a crime which an adult is capable of. It is one-way.

Are you telling me that you as a teenager behaved as a responsible adult would ? (In context to your circumstances of course) you followed all the rules ? Your parents / elders never had to correct you ? (Nobody was there to correct him at any step, the effect cascaded)

I did not do any criminal acts. So is not applicable to me. After probably 5-6th standard, I do not remember being corrected. Cause I had learnt: morals, ethics, and code of conduct. Which people even after being acquainted to, do not adhere to, in India.

Would you be the exact same person you are right now if you were born to and grew up - to a dictator ? Or to a trafficker / terrorist ?

Does the flutter of a butterflies wings in China, cause a rain-storm in America...?

Would you have the same manners and courtesy toward women if you were poor and uneducated ?

Yes, of course that is possible. Manners are not educative. Are all poor the above. Do only poor commit crimes..?

Choice is not a singular decision. Its a option you take in a circumstance based on your previous experiences.
A part of the blame comes on us because, as a society it is our job to provide for and show our young the right way in life.

Basic: cause and effect. So you telling me in prior scenarios, they had always raped women, and killed them, sent them flying out of a bus, nude..? Please. It is not our job to tame hyenas to be dogs.

I urge you to develop some compassion to those who had no one to guide them growing up.

They could speak, see, hear. That is all they needed to be sane and non-criminal. Living in a city. They knew how to procure booze, drive a vehicle, lure the innocent. What more learning should they have. They were 2-steps ahead of us all..!

 

[Lord Nemesis]

^ The problem with an attitude like this is that is that the society absolves itself or all responsibility. Your logic is that you will let a cactus grow in your garden, by failing to weed it out and then blame it for pricking you during your walk ?

That is exactly why these amendments are needed. It is necessary to weed out the thorns (criminals) from society when you find them before they hurt somebody else. Don't delude yourself into thinking that people do what they do solely because of the environment they grew up in. It may be one of the factors in some cases, but not the deciding factor in the every case. How people behave is a choice. People don't suddenly become any more mature at the exact moment they turn 18 than they were 5 min back.

Juvenile laws the way they are now are plain stupid. While I agree that there may be influencing factors for a crime and they should be examined properly no doubt, it is no different when the culprit is an adult. How do you explain away the away the Juvenile in Nirbhaya case behaved. Not only was she raped, but this person went on to torture her. He messed up her internal organs with a metal rod and with his bare hands and derived pleasure from it.

I want you to explain to me why this guy who is over 17 years old did what he did and why you believe that he would be mature enough not to have done that if he were 6 months older. What aspect of the environment he grew up in contributed to his behavior. There are plenty of people who grow up in the exact same kind of environment that he grew up in and still not behave like him.

We don't have laws and punishments just to make criminals mend themselves. I believe there are three different reasons

1. Correctional punishments meant to make criminals mend their ways.
2. Exemplary punishments to deter other potential criminals.
3. Getting rid of a menaces to society.

In majority of cases where 2 & 3 are not applied to serious crimes, there is a big percentage of repetition of crime.

Say I turn the tables around, will you send the girl to prison for 18-30 years saying she raped the boy ?

Do you know that in India, by law a woman cannot rape a man ? Even in case of extra-marital affairs, a woman cannot be punished (she is considered a victim) , but a man is punished. No proof is required to arrest a man for rape, and it is non bailable. What if an angry girlfriend accuses a teenager of rape ?

You still believe the Women's Organization are right ?

Why not? I am totally in favor of equality of justice be it a male, female, adult or child. In fact, long jail terms and death will deter fake cases as well because fake cases would be treated more seriously. In a case where potential punishment can be death, fake evidence and testimonies are treated as an attempt to murder.

Not an adult either !
Are you telling me that you as a teenager behaved as a responsible adult would ? (In context to your circumstances of course) you followed all the rules ? Your parents / elders never had to correct you ? (Nobody was there to correct him at any step, the effect cascaded)

Please... being a teenager does not give them the right to behave like animals. How retarded has a teenager have to be to rely on somebody to tell them that raping or murdering is not the right thing. There is a limit to things you can do to be excused as adolescence or immaturity. It does not give somebody Carte blanche to behave as they please.

Would you be the exact same person you are right now if you were born to and grew up - to a dictator ? Or to a trafficker / terrorist ?

Right... you would pardon somebody who hurts your family if his parents happened to be drug traffickers and he is only 17 years 364 days 23 hours old. Easy to say things without experiencing the pain a victims family has to go through.

Choice is not a singular decision. Its a option you take in a circumstance based on your previous experiences.
A part of the blame comes on us because, as a society it is our job to provide for and show our young the right way in life.

Yes, choice is not a singular decision. But choice is something every body has regardless of their environment. Even under the same environment people can behave differently.

- A person may choose to stay silent despite being hurt
- A person may fight back for justice.
- A person may return back what they suffered several times over
- A person may repeat the same with others
- A person may hurt others for personal gain.
- A person may hurt others without reason
- A person may hurt others and derive pleasure from it.

You cannot weigh everyone on the same scale and mask people committing grievous crimes because they happened to be under a certain age limit or because they grew up in such and such environment.

If you had to kill somebody in self defense because you had no choice, you still had a choice. You could have let them kill you. Its simply that you made a choice to save yourself at the cost of your attackers life and the law would have no qualms favoring your side. If somebody tortured and killed somebody for fun.. Its doesn't and shouldn't matter who they are and punishments should be meted out.

 

[JMP]

Let me clarify one thing - I am in no way condoning the actions of the juvenile in the Nirbhaya case, nor am I saying that he should be let off with a 3 year remand home sentence. So please lets not make this debate only about this case in particular. Yes this case was brutal, the rarest of rare - and that animal needs to be punished severely for that. May be even death penalty can be justified in this case....

But this case alone in no way justifies altering the definition of a juvenile as it will affect 1000s of other teens, who's crime may not be as heinous as this, and still may be measured against a harsher law.

Too sleepy to post my responses now, will try tomorrow....

 

[Sanav3]

What about the mumbai case, 2 juvenile's?
And these are the cases we are aware about.

I believe we need to look into juvenile's crimes on case basis.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

Let me clarify one thing - I am in no way condoning the actions of the juvenile in the Nirbhaya case, nor am I saying that he should be let off with a 3 year remand home sentence. So please lets not make this debate only about this case in particular. Yes this case was brutal, the rarest of rare - and that animal needs to be punished severely for that. May be even death penalty can be justified in this case....

Sorry, this may be portrayed as rarest of of rare cases, but it not really so rare at all. majority of the most brutal crimes are being committed by people in the age group of 16~19. 16 and 17 years commit these crimes with the knowledge of existence of Juvenile laws and that they can get away with light punishment even if caught. Even the 18 and 19 year old's commit crimes and get fake certificates to prove that they are 17.

A 14 year old tortured and killed a man by crucifying him to a wall by driving nails though his limbs, slashed his entire body and finally decapitated him and no he did not have any high and mighty reason to do that. He did it for fun while earning some extra pocket money from someone who offered money to get rid of him. Three 15/16 year old's set a girl on fire for trying to resist rape.

There is a very strong need to deter these people who think Juvenile laws give them the opportunity to commit heinous crimes and get away with it. I suggest you start opening your eyes and look at whats happening around you.

But this case alone in no way justifies altering the definition of a juvenile as it will affect 1000s of other teens, who's crime may not be as heinous as this, and still may be measured against a harsher law.

How? Why? I call BS on that. Punishments are meted out in accordance with the crime and even for adults the punishments in India are very light. How and why do you think that so called 1000's of other teens would be affected? You think its alright for 1000's of other teens to commit murder or rape as long as they don't do it as brutally as in Nirbhaya case. You think its funny that there are 1000's of teens who you think would be affected by having harsher laws. If there are 1000's of teens committing crimes, it means that the punishments are not harsh enough to deter them. There is a 1 in 1000 cases where a Juvenile may commit a crime in self defense. So don't try to use it as justification to say that harsher laws would not be brought in.