Published On: 11th December, 2024
Authored By: Gayatri Sankpal
Vivekanand Education Society's College of Law
ABSTRACT
This paper emphasizes the need to increase juveniles’ accountability while enhancing rehabilitation. The offenses committed by youngsters under 18 according to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, come under the juvenile offences. However, this Amendment of 2015, proved to be fundamental in putting forth for discussion, the aspect of accountability in the action of the juveniles. The view of attaining and acquiring rehabilitative methods for juveniles has led people and juveniles to be ignorant about the accountability of their actions. With the growing rate of delinquents and its impact on society, there is a need to revisit the demographics and ideology behind juvenile justice. This paper will explore the importance of creating a harmonious balance between rehabilitation and accountability while trying juveniles for their crimes.
INTRODUCTION
Delinquency is mainly the outcome of poverty, an unhappy childhood with high amounts of assault/abuse, an inappropriate living lifestyle for a child, a lack of education, and a lack of attention towards the children by the parents. These reasons lead the young and empty minds towards the consequences of wrongdoing. It is said that children follow whatever they see. Hence, when they are brought up in a childhood that denies them attention, affection, and parenting of necessary manners and etiquette, they turn into juveniles and commit crimes. Juvenile justice systems allow young people to learn from their mistakes without incurring long-term consequences through rehabilitation.
The juvenile justice system is a collection of laws, rules, and guidelines designed to control how non-adult offenders are handled when they break the law and to offer them legal recourse in cases of abuse or neglect[1]. In India, it is believed that children under 7 cannot commit a crime. In contrast, the age till a child would be treated as a juvenile for his/her crimes or offenses was accepted as 18 under section 2 (35) of the Juvenile Justice Act, of 2015[2] which replaced the previous Juvenile Justice Act, of 1986[3]. Although the goal of the juvenile court movement was to give kids customized care in a different system from the adult criminal justice and prison systems, according to various findings there have been increased rates of juvenile delinquency in India which has also become the central social issue.
According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a rise in the number of juvenile offenses, particularly those perpetrated by those between the ages of 16 and 18. Based on NCRB data, the proportion of juvenile offenses to all crimes climbed from 1% in 2003 to 1.2% in 2013. During the same period, 16-18-year-olds charged with crimes as a percentage of all juveniles accused of crimes grew from 54% to 66%.[4]
These shocking yet terrifying numbers signify that there is a need to add to the already-existing method of addressing these juveniles which is rehabilitation. Along with rehabilitation, there’s a strong need for juveniles to acknowledge accountability. This paper notes the need and importance of balancing accountability and rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system.
LEGISLATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA
The present legislation adhered to by India for juvenile justice is the Juvenile Justice Act, of 2015. The act aims to unify and modify the laws regarding children suspected of violating the law and who require care and protection. It also addresses their basic needs by providing appropriate care, safety, development, treatment, and social reintegration; additionally, it adopts a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interests of children which mainly focuses on rehabilitation.
Although this perception took a slight backfoot after the heinous Nirbhaya Gang Rape and Murder Case in which a 17-year-old boy participated in the act of rape but still got exempted from the death penalty just because he was a minor. He was released at 29, three years after his conviction as he was protected under the Juvenile Justice Act, of 2000. This lax exception shocked the country, making people reconsider the provisions, and ultimately leading to the amendment of the Act. Maneka Gandhi, the Minister of Women and Child Development presented a bill in parliament to lower the age at which juvenile offenders become criminally liable. The Juvenile Justice Act, of 2015, provided for the transfer of juveniles aged 16-18, who commit heinous crimes, to the children’s courts where they are treated as adults.[5] This proved to be the pseudo step of juvenile justice in India to foster accountability over rehabilitation.
REHABILITATION
Recidivism is probably one of the main factors undermining society’s trust in the criminal justice system. Since counseling and rehabilitation are more successful in lowering recidivism rates than adult criminal courts, the juvenile justice system places a stronger emphasis on them. Children who are incarcerated experience psychological and physical trauma, which increases the probability that they will commit crimes in the future. Research indicates that juvenile criminals who are prosecuted in adult criminal court systems have greater recidivism rates than juvenile offenders who stay in the juvenile court system.[6]
Hence there are separate courts established for juveniles. The court’s primary duty in rehabilitation is to provide therapy to prevent antisocial behavior and other issues from worsening. This concept holds that the court should serve as a kind guardian or parens patriae (ultimate parent) and that society has some of the blame for failing to provide teenage offenders with sufficient support and protection.[7]
The primary takeaway for legislators, as well as the central tenet of the Court’s reasoning, is that juvenile criminals are typically less guilty than their adult counterparts because developmental considerations influence their criminal decisions. According to the principle of proportionality, an offender’s culpability should be taken into account in addition to the harm that their actions created.[8] Teenagers are probably less competent and culpable than adults in applying these skills to make decisions in the actual world, primarily due to insufficient experience and partly because they process information less effectively than adults.[9]
Rehabilitation is a long-term reforming process that includes education to lower recidivism, skill development, vocational training, mental health therapy, and successful reintegration into society. Young offenders can break the cycle of crime and create better futures for themselves. These resources give them the knowledge and skills to pursue meaningful careers and become self-sufficient.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Despite the rehabilitative approach followed by the juvenile justice system for the betterment of the children, juveniles have started to in a way take advantage of the leniency. This approach towards the juveniles fails to create a deterring effect on them which can be seen through the increase of juvenile delinquency in organised as well as unorganised crime. It is necessary to protect the rights of the victims and provide them justice. In the juvenile system, accountability needs to be one of the major aspects when the juveniles are tried even after having very little awareness of the consequences as per the arguments of the people siding with rehabilitation, the juvenile offenders need to understand the depth of the crime they commit and repercussions that flow the act. Because of rehabilitation, the victim’s rights are side-lined which cannot be ignored all the time. It can be difficult for victims to get justice, restitution, and assistance for their mental, emotional, and financial healing.
The main takeaway from this heading is that accountability procedures in juvenile justice ought to be created expressly for juvenile justice, not by transferring elements from the criminal justice system, and should foster moral growth, legal socialization, and healthy social learning throughout adolescence.[10] To guarantee justice, appropriate assistance, and a more equal society, it is necessary to adopt a victim-centric approach, improve legislative provisions, and fortify support services for both the offenders and the victims.
In the case, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra[11], the Supreme Court noted the permissive attitude toward minors and questioned the efficacy of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act. This judgment’s paragraph 79 reads as follows:
“We have started gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are dealt with in the name of the goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes. It is for the Government to consider whether its enactment of 2015 has proved to be effective or something still needs to be done in the matter before it is too late in the day.”
Being accountable for your own mistakes will make young minds more responsible and careful about their actions. This will benefit the children as well as the society at large. Legislation should be made as such that the heinous juvenile offenders are made accountable for their crimes not on par with the adult’s criminal psychology but enough to make the juvenile feel remorse and aware of his wrongdoings.
BALANCING ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION
The problem with juvenile justice today is that there are loopholes in the implementation of the legislation. The current legislation has several drawbacks, including a lack of awareness of the rights of crime victims; more leniency towards minors; a failure to establish a deterrent factor; the transfer of a child to jail upon turning 21; and a failure to provide follow-up following the end of the stay.[12]
There have been instances where the framework of rehabilitation or even the basic structure of the juvenile justice system has been misused. Because of the juvenile system’s laxity, there is a rise in organized crime and delinquency instead of deterrence. There is a systemic failure to meet the needs and rights of victims and offenders, even in the face of efforts to promote rehabilitation.
On 19th May 2024, two engineers were killed in Pune after their bike was hit by a speeding Porsche which was driven by an intoxicated 17-year-old son of a prominent builder. The minor was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board after making him write a 300-word essay. This grant of bail in such conditions sparked fumes in the people who felt furious over the leniency of the board just because he was the son of someone powerful. In such instances, the minor gets away with his crime without any remorse or realization of his mistake which cost two people their life.
While it is true that rehabilitation is very important to analyze and eradicate the root cause of the act of the juvenile, it is equally important to make them responsible for their action. Balancing both methods is vital for the betterment of the children and society at large.
The evolution of juvenile justice in India exemplifies the dynamic interplay between rehabilitation and accountability. From the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 to the more comprehensive Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015, the legislative system has continuously changed to handle the unique difficulties raised by delinquency. There has been an attempt to reconcile the goals of rehabilitation with the necessity of maintaining public safety, as seen by recent legislation allowing juvenile offenders who commit heinous crimes between the ages of 16 and 18 to stand trial as adults.
CONCLUSION
The action of the juvenile court is to save the child and to prevent him from becoming a criminal. It seeks to provide him with the same care and protection that his parents should give him. The essential components that differ greatly from those in adult courts are that juvenile court proceedings are typically less formal than criminal court trials, however, this is not always the case. Accountability and rehabilitation are comparable to a potter’s hands sculpting a clay pot. One hand is delicate and soft, offering support from the inside out, much as rehabilitation provides care, understanding, and the opportunity to rebuild. On the other hand, accountability, which guarantees that limits and regulations are followed, is hard and uncompromising as it presses against the outside. Like a pot well-constructed, the softness and hardness work together to shape and mold, while the firmness defines and guides, resulting in a balanced and exquisite result.
Reference(s):
[1] Jensen, G. and Shoemaker, D.J. (2024) Juvenile justice, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/juvenile-justice (Accessed: 09 October 2024).
[2] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, of 2015, Section 2(35), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).
[3] Juvenile Justice Act, of 1986, No. 53, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
[4] Apoorva (2015) The juvenile justice Bill, 2015: All you need to know, PRS Legislative Research. Available at: https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/the-juvenile-justice-bill-2015-all-you-need-to-know (Accessed: 09 October 2024).
[5] Bishnoi, E. (2023) Nirbhaya – the cause of the change in the juvenile justice law, Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences. Available at: https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/105.-Eshita-Bishnoi.pdf (Accessed: 09 October 2024).
[6] Fitzgerald, E. (2023) ‘Put the Juvenile Back in Juvenile Court’, Journals at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository., 68(3). doi: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol68/iss3/1.
[7] Steinberg, L., Chung, H.L. and Little, M. (2004) ‘Reentry of young offenders from the justice system’, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), pp. 21–38. doi:10.1177/1541204003260045.
[8] SCOTT, E.S. and STEINBERG, L. (2009) Rethinking juvenile justice [Preprint]. doi:10.2307/j.ctv103xdxp.
[9] Scott, E.S. and Steinberg, L. (2008) ‘Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime’, The Future of Children, 18(2), pp. 15–33. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0011.
[10] Juvenile justice: Balancing accountability and rehabilitation under the IPC (2023) Jus Corpus. Available at: https://www.juscorpus.com/juvenile-justice-balancing-accountability-and-rehabilitation-under-the-ipc/#_ftn8 (Accessed: 10 October 2024).
[11] The State of Jammu and Kashmir (now U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir) & Ors. v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1592 (India).
[12] MURUGESH, T. and KALIRAJ, S. (2024) ‘REDEFINING JUVENILE JUSTICE: MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND REFORMATIVE SYSTEM FOCUSED ON YOUNG OFFENDERS’, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW, 4(1).
