Juvenile justice must balance punishment with rehabilitation
IN the aftermath of the May 19 Pune accident, in which two young bike-borne engineers were fatally hit by a Porsche car driven by a 17-year-old boy, a web of cover-ups and misuse of power has emerged, involving politicians, doctors and law enforcement officials.
The minor had reportedly been drinking at pubs before the accident. A local MLA is accused of influencing the investigation and is linked to doctors who allegedly tampered with the teenager’s blood sample to conceal alcohol consumption. The Juvenile Justice Board, particularly its non-judicial member, has faced flak for initially granting bail to the boy on lenient conditions like writing an essay. The minor’s father and grandfather have been accused of wilful neglect and manipulating evidence and witnesses, including an alleged attempt to coerce their driver into taking the blame for the mishap. Police officials have been suspended for mishandling the case. The lapses on their part include a delayed collection of the teen’s blood sample and initially pressing less serious charges.
The case underscores the complex interplay of influence and accountability, highlighting significant lapses and raising questions about the integrity of not only the juvenile justice system but the criminal justice system in general, which can be manipulated by the rich and powerful. Besides, such cases demonstrate that some minors display adult-level criminal behaviour.
Heinous crimes, such as rapes, violent assaults and fatal accidents, being committed by juveniles across the world highlight this trend. In England and Wales, stop and searches involving children rose by 13 per cent in one year, and arrests increased by 9 per cent, pointing to a rise in youth involvement in serious offences. The reoffending rate among juveniles in the UK has increased to 32.2 per cent, suggesting that the current system may not be addressing the root causes of juvenile delinquency.
In India, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there was a significant increase in juvenile crimes, rising by 30 per cent in 2020 compared to the year before. Most of these offenders were in the 16-18 age group. Rape and murder were among the offences committed by them, underlining a worrying trend that has seen minors commit serious sexual crimes The NCRB data from 2002 to 2012 shows an increase of 143 per cent in the number of rapes by juveniles, an 87 per cent rise in murders and an alarming increase of 500 per cent in kidnappings of women and girls by minors.
High-profile cases of heinous crimes committed by underage persons draw media attention and public scrutiny, shaping perceptions and influencing the debate on juvenile justice. These cases amplify the public sentiment and lead to calls for harsher penalties for the minors behind such serious crimes. The Nirbhaya case prompted amendments in criminal laws to enhance penalties for sexual offences. But the changes have not addressed the root causes of juvenile delinquency or the developmental and psychological aspects of juveniles.
Research indicates that public confidence in the justice system is affected by the perceived leniency in such cases. A Pew Research Centre study found that 58 per cent of the Americans believe that the justice system was too lenient when it came to juvenile offenders, a concern applicable to other countries, including India. Although substantial evidence supports rehabilitation over punishment for juveniles, the US juvenile justice system often leans towards stricter penalties in view of public and political pressure. However, recent reforms and shifts towards rehabilitation indicate recognition of the need for a balanced approach that prioritises the wellbeing of young offenders and takes into consideration their prospects, according to the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review.
A balanced approach to punishment and rehabilitation is essential for maintaining public trust in the juvenile justice system. Transparent and fair handling of cases involving juveniles is the key. The Juvenile Justice Act permits the trial of juveniles aged 16-18 as adults for heinous crimes, provided that their mental capacity to understand the crime is proven. To ensure swift action and mitigate public outcry, initial psychological evaluations could be expedited. This demonstrates the system’s responsiveness in addressing severe offences.
The legal framework offers various options for dealing with offenders, including the application of the strictest measures. For instance, the boy involved in the fatal car accident should have faced more stringent consequences, such as extended detention, mandatory community service or strict probation. A recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology supports this approach, revealing that despite ongoing brain development, juveniles, particularly those aged 16-18, often have the cognitive and moral maturity to grasp the severity of their actions. This ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the severity of the crime and addresses public concerns about leniency.
Rehabilitation programmes for juveniles who commit serious offences should include structured activities like regimented training, cadet programmes, firefighting, civic service corps, agricultural initiatives, sports, and skill development in construction and trades. These programmes, encompassing law enforcement training, emergency skills, community projects and hands-on public service, not only address behavioural issues but also prepare the underage offenders for societal reintegration, ultimately reducing recidivism and fostering long-term success. By putting in place a stringent legal framework that ensures swift and transparent trials and balances justice with rehabilitation, the system can address both punitive and reformative needs while reinforcing societal values that discourage violent behaviour.
As Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defence Fund, stated, “Justice is not cheap. Justice is not quick. It is not ever finally achieved. It is hard, continuous work to bring about social change.” This approach avoids the pitfalls of short-term penal solutions driven by public pressure.
