[sgiitk]

@carboy; The cut-off has to be fuzzy. There should be a band where the legal eagles decide whether to person deserves to be treated as a juvenile or as an adult. I know this is subjective but so is life!

[carboy]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

@carboy; The cut-off has to be fuzzy. There should be a band where the legal eagles decide whether to person deserves to be treated as a juvenile or as an adult.

I don't understand - what exactly do you mean by 'legal eagles'? Should they decide the band? Or should they decide which of juves who fall into the band be treated as juvenile or adult on a case to case basis?

[anuragn]

Originally Posted by carboy

Or should they decide which of juves who fall into the band be treated as juvenile or adult on a case to case basis?

Correct. There cannot be a rigid cut-off age where a juvenile is assumed to attain maturity in just one day!
It has to be a band.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by anuragn

Correct. There cannot be a rigid cut-off age where a juvenile is assumed to attain maturity in just one day!
It has to be a band.

I think England has 3 bands, something like this: upto 10, 10-14 & 14-18. These 3 groups are treated differently and also different from above 18 laws.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by anuragn

Correct. There cannot be a rigid cut-off age where a juvenile is assumed to attain maturity in just one day!
It has to be a band.

What happens to people who fall in the band?

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

What happens to people who fall in the band?

Well then they should be punished according to individual crime. For instance in this case letting off this so called juvenile is a slap on every Indian's face. He deserves a much more serious punishment.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Well then they should be punished according to individual crime.

What does that mean? Do you mean people in the band should treated as an adult and not a juvenile?

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by carboy

What does that mean? Do you mean people in the band should treated as an adult and not a juvenile?

what that means is in that case quantum of punishment should be function of gravity of the crime. A few months in a juvenile home for a brutal rape and murder is total mockery of the term 'justice'. People will lose faith in justice system and that will only give rise to parallel govts and justice systems.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by joslicx

what that means is in that case quantum of punishment should be function of gravity of the crime. A few months in a juvenile home for a brutal rape and murder is total mockery of the term 'justice'. People will lose faith in justice system and that will only give rise to parallel govts and justice systems.

All this is good - but I don't understand where the band fits in.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

All this is good - but I don't understand where the band fits in.

Arey the point is that the age of 18 is too big a loophole in our legal system. In todays world I believe that a child develops the knowledge or maturity levels of an adult to the extent that he can judge whats legal and whats a crime, a lot earlier than the age of 18. So instead of keeping a point reference like 18 years we can rather have a band, say 15-18 years. Convicts falling in this age group should then be dealt according to the individual case. So this animal would then be treated as an adult for the horrible crime he committed.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

So instead of keeping a point reference like 18 years we can rather have a band, say 15-18 years. Convicts falling in this age group should then be dealt according to the individual case.

I find it stupid that a person is a clear cut juvenile when he is 14 years, 11 months and 29 days old. BUT in couple of days time, he suddenly becomes a 'band' person. I thought the 'band' thing was going to solve the problem of abrupt transition from one category to another but it doesn't seem to.

If a 14 year, 11 month, 29 days old person commits a brutal rape and murder, the quantum of punishment would not be a function of the gravity of the crime. A few months in a juvenile home for a brutal rape and murder for this 14 year, 11 month and 29 days old person would be a total mockery of the term 'justice'. People will lose faith in justice system and that will only give rise to parallel govts and justice systems.

[vivekiny2k]

I am not being totally serious, but we could have a panel for such borderline cases to decide if the person in question was capable of doing/did anything in an adult capacity.

Reminds me of "Sanju baba" being arrested for possessing an AK-56 and it sounded like everybody wanted us to forget his mistake since he was mentally a 14 year old (spoken in some other words though). His real age was about 40 I think.

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by carboy

IANAL, but I think the Indian constitution rightly disallows "ex post facto law".

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India gives this security to the citizens that "No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence".

However what needs to be understood over here is that this is a one off scenario where in the court can give him a death penalty if and only if an amendment is made to the current JJ care and protection act. And IMHO the court in this particular case may just do so, because in the past the SC has removed the security provided by Ex post facto laws on matters such as penalty. This being a matter of much more gravity, one may witness a change.

Coming back to the main need of the hour, does the JJ act need an amendment. The basic reason why the age of juvenile was raised from 16 to 18 years was because we believe in a reformative system of justice. That is the basic idea why a person committing the most heinous crime i.e murder is given a death penalty and that also not in each and every case. That is also the reason why a person committing a misdemeanor is not given a death penalty and is given way lesser a punishment, even though a death penalty may have a deterrent effect and that might give out a strong message to the community and even small crimes would not be committed, but then again that is not how the legal system works. It is so because we believe that the person should be given a second chance to reform himself. Also in and before the year 2000 when there were talks of increasing the age cap there were reports all over the place which suggested that the age should be increased for the protection of juveniles, pretty much like now however now the reports do suggest otherwise.

I do believe that there cannot be a blanket reduction in the age of juveniles, however we do need an amendment. An amendment which would punish the juveniles in serious offences such as the one in question but not for other small crimes which he may have done as a result of his younger age.

And most importantly this amendment needs to be enacted soon or else this delay would be like curtains for this shining justice system of ours.

[manolin]

Originally Posted by Enigmatic

in the past the SC has removed the security provided by Ex post facto laws on matters such as penalty. This being a matter of much more gravity, one may witness a change.

I don't think an amendment to criminal laws making retrospective changes will stand up in court.

In respect of the above posts about bands, we already have bands - below 7 (nothing can be instituted against such kids), 7-12 (limited offences), 12-18 (Juveniles- all offences).

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

I find it stupid that a person is a clear cut juvenile when he is 14 years, 11 months and 29 days old. BUT in couple of days time, he suddenly becomes a 'band' person. I thought the 'band' thing was going to solve the problem of abrupt transition from one category to another but it doesn't seem to.

If a 14 year, 11 month, 29 days old person commits a brutal rape and murder, the quantum of punishment would not be a function of the gravity of the crime. A few months in a juvenile home for a brutal rape and murder for this 14 year, 11 month and 29 days old person would be a total mockery of the term 'justice'. People will lose faith in justice system and that will only give rise to parallel govts and justice systems.

The majority of these juveniles who commit such brutal crimes would tend to fall into that 15-18 years age group. And don't ask me to name my source for this info but its common to see most such crimes being committed by people in that age group. Now ofcourse there would always be have to be a cut off. Just like in medicine if your blood pressure is 120 its normal. At 121 you have hypertension. Do you think that a point 1 increase is all it takes? No but there have to be some values. the creation of such a band would ensure that most of such juvenile convicts would fall into that bracket. They can then be tried according to there crimes. This would also ensure that we still consider them as juveniles if there crime is not that serious or grave but in cases like this one there has to be a more serious punishment dealt out. the real mockery of the judicial system is when after embowelling a girl you are let free because you are not 18 yet.