Its not the age but the crime that is juvenile or otherwise

This is a discussion that is difficult to stay away from. I am referring to the Juvenile Justice Act and whether the juvenile under consideration, who is supposed to have committed one of the most heinous crimes should get away with the current considerations of the Act. One has to conduct this discussion with sensitivity towards the deceased, her family as well as with consideration towards not harming justice in future cases where juveniles are reformed.

Let me state my perspective of punishments that should be meted out and how Law must support it. Punishments are necessary so that

1. There is atleast an imaginary justice to the victims of the crime.
2. The perpetrator has an opportunity to reform oneself in isolation and constant observation.
3. The perpetrator does not commit other such crimes and harm the society.
4. The punishment works as a determent in the society and reduces such crime in the future.

If we agree that point 3 is of any importance then there is every reason to believe that this Juvenile here cannot get away with the considerations of the Juvenile Justice Act. There is a very serious possibility of this so called boy committing such acts in future, given the dastardly nature of the act that has shaken the country.

One argument that is difficult for me to accept is the age bar that categorizes somebody as a Juvenile or otherwise. We are missing the point here. Its not about whether the boy is a Juvenile or otherwise. Its whether the 'act' was juvenile or not. Its not the age but the act that must decide whether this is juvenile or otherwise. So, Juvenile courts can try all 'juvenile crimes' but standard courts should try all non-juvenile crimes irrespective of the age. Hence, the Juvenile Court must investigate whether the act was juvenile or otherwise and accordingly make a recommendation on where the case must be tried. If the current Law does not provide for that, its a pity and shows us in very poor light. We must change it for the better.

Ofcourse we are all assuming that the so called Juvenile indeed committed this heinous crime. At this stage, there is every reason to believe so. The matter is sub-judice and Courts must decide, not us.

The sadder part is this entire episode has been limited to the following.

1. Punishment that must be meted out for the crime and betterment of laws for the same.
2. Reforming men and bettering our upbringing of boys.
3. Cultural mindset that needs to change in the society.

Its not my argument that the above factors dont contribute. However, crimes resulting from these are far lesser. There is a bigger case that must be considered. The overall mental health of the society today is very poor because of rapid centralization, crude urbanisation, break-down of the fabric of the society that was built on thriving communities and excessive emphasis on material development without adequate measures for a healthy distribution of the same. The juvenile under consideration here became such a fellow because of these aspects. This should not be considered while investigating the extent of punishment that must be meted out to him, for sure. If he has done it he must pay the price irrespective of who else was responsible for the crime indirectly. However, if we are serious of avoiding such crimes we have to answer this question. Are your social, economical and cultural choices driving people crazy and ill? Why is it that big cities are centres of crime while smaller cities and towns have a disproportionately lesser rate of crime?