Juvenile delinquency or crimes, equally distressing
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: February 13 2016 -

The victim was just 20 years old and two out of the three accused have been ordered to a juvenile home while the third has been released on bail.

Yes, we are talking about the alleged rape of a girl at Ngairangbam, Imphal West in February 6 night. Even though police pulled up all the three accused, age came to the rescue of the two prime accused even as the third accused was found to be not much culpable.

Their age is still tender and their mental frames can be certainly re-oriented to the right direction with correct inputs. Generally, a person below 18 years is considered to be a juvenile.

Juvenile delinquency is something common in all human societies, regardless of the socio-economic status, political systems, social ethos, culture and traditions.

Juvenile delinquency ranges from minor offences to serious crimes like rape and murder.

Leniency or unaccountability enjoyed by juvenile delinquents has been a matter of intense debates when it comes to serious crimes like rape, murder, forgery etc.

One fundamental argument which advocates leniency towards juvenile delinquency is that they are not mature enough.

They are not mature enough for their conscience to understand the gravity of the crimes they committed and their impacts (both physical and psychological) upon the victim(s) and the society at large.

This is the basic argument which has been vouching juvenile delinquency.

The argument has its own merits. According to many sociologists, legal practitioners and law-makers, juvenile delinquents are too young to be treated as hardened criminals and subjecting them to similar penalties as awarded to mature criminals would only reinforce their criminal tendency. For correction of their criminal tendency, there are juvenile detention homes and special courts.

Now coming back to the victims, everybody will agree that the trauma, pain, stigma and ignominy suffered by them are more or less equal whether the offenders are juveniles or criminals.

The same holds true in the case of the Ngairangbam gang-rape.

Of course, there are juvenile homes or detention centres which are set up with a common understanding that criminal tendency of juveniles can be corrected with little inputs in the form of counselling, detention if necessary etc.

All the legislations about juvenile delinquency and institutions of juvenile homes are for dealing with juveniles after they have committed offences or crimes.

There is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which was amended in 2006 and again in 2011.

Eight Writ Petitions alleging Juvenile Justice Act and its several provisions to be unconstitutional were heard by the Supreme Court of India in the second week of July 2013 and were dismissed, holding Juvenile Justice Act to be constitutional.

Demand for reduction of age of juvenile from 18 years to 16 years were also turned down by the Supreme Court, when Union of India stated that there is no proposal to reduce the age of a juvenile.

Then don’t we have anything which can pre-empt or avert juvenile delinquencies or at least minimize their degree and frequency? Law and legislations and for that matter counselling post commission of offences would not be enough to avoid juvenile delinquencies.

Whether the perpetrators of a serious crime like murder or rape are juveniles or adults does not make any difference to the victims.

So the State and the community must focus on averting juvenile delinquencies to the maximum possible level and this should start from the level of primary schools.

Social discipline, respect for human rights and lofty morality should be inculcated into young minds through both formal and informal education so as to prevent possible sprouting of criminal tendency among juveniles.