Don’t lower juvenile age
Our blood boils at the prospect of the most brutal of the culprits responsible for the brutal December 16 Delhi gangrape almost getting away as he is deemed a minor and will thus be tried under laws for juvenile offenders.
While this may be one of the worst examples of miscarriage of justice, one must think deeply before any decision to lower the age at which a person is considered a juvenile. If young people who are the nation’s children prove capable of heinous offences like rape and murder, it indicates a failure of society as a whole. The golden rule remains that a well-brought-up child rarely strays into violence, away from acceptable human behaviour.
While it is definitely time to take a relook at laws dealing with crimes against women, it might be worthwhile to consider a variety of ways to devise laws that would be equitable and protect the young, while at the same time make a distinction between less serious offences and those of the heinous kind perpetrated by perverted youth. The committee led by former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma did a thorough job studying laws on sexual offences in India and other nations, and concluded that it would be best to let the juvenile age remain at 18. There are enabling provisions in other nations’ laws that can distinguish between minor offences and serious crimes that can easily be assimilated into our system. The law on minors should not be drastically altered in an emotive rush.
Post new comment