Introduction
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 defines a “child” as a person under the age of 18, distinguishing between two categories: children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection. This legislation introduced significant changes, especially for juveniles involved in heinous crimes, by allowing for their prosecution as adults in certain cases. While the Act seeks to modernize India’s juvenile justice framework, several issues arise regarding its definition of “child” and the implications of the age threshold in the context of heinous crimes. Below is a critique of the Act’s age-based definition and its impact on juvenile justice.
Age Classification and its Implications for Heinous Crimes
The Act allows juveniles aged 16-18, accused of heinous crimes (offenses with a minimum punishment of seven years), to be tried as adults, provided the Juvenile Justice Board deems them mature enough to understand the gravity of their actions. This marked a significant shift from the 2000 version of the Act, which treated all offenders under 18 uniformly.
Criticism:
- Undermines the Rehabilitative Intent: The provision allowing children aged 16-18 to be tried as adults goes against the core principles of juvenile justice, which emphasize rehabilitation over retribution. Trying juveniles as adults can stigmatize them, limiting their chances for reformation and social reintegration.
- Inconsistent with International Standards: This provision conflicts with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which advocates treating all individuals under 18 as children, irrespective of the severity of the offense. The shift toward punitive measures raises concerns that India is moving toward a more retributive rather than restorative model of juvenile justice.
- Potential for Arbitrary Assessments: The Juvenile Justice Board’s ability to determine the mental maturity of the child can result in subjective decisions. The lack of clear guidelines on evaluating psychological maturity and intent may lead to arbitrary rulings, putting some juveniles at an unfair disadvantage.
Maturity Assessment Challenges
The preliminary assessment required by the Act to determine whether a juvenile can be tried as an adult introduces significant legal and psychological challenges. Juveniles aged 16-18 are evaluated based on their understanding of the offense and their mental and physical capacity to commit the crime.
Criticism:
- Lack of Standardization: The assessment process lacks a standardized framework, making it vulnerable to biases and misinterpretation by different Juvenile Justice Boards. Psychological maturity is a complex, fluid concept, influenced by socio-economic factors, trauma, and environment. A minor’s apparent understanding of the offense may not fully capture their cognitive and emotional immaturity.
- Developmental Neuroscience: Research in developmental psychology and neuroscience demonstrates that adolescents, particularly between ages 16 and 18, have underdeveloped frontal lobes—the area responsible for impulse control, risk assessment, and decision-making. Thus, treating juveniles as adults disregards scientific evidence suggesting that young people are less culpable due to their incomplete brain development.
Discrepancies in Protection and Care Provisions
The Act’s definition of “child” creates distinctions between children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with the law, applying different interventions to each group. While the former receives welfare-based interventions, the latter can be subjected to more punitive measures, especially for heinous crimes.
Criticism:
- Inconsistent Care Approaches: The dichotomy in care provided to children in need of protection and those in conflict with the law risks creating a divide in care mechanisms. Children accused of crimes, especially heinous ones, might not receive the same level of psychological support or welfare interventions as those categorized as needing protection.
- Neglect of Root Causes: Many juveniles involved in crimes often come from vulnerable backgrounds, facing poverty, abuse, or neglect. The focus on punitive measures in cases of heinous crimes overlooks the broader social determinants that lead juven
The Act’s definition of “child” creates a sharp distinction between children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with the law, leading to different treatment paths.
Criticism:
- Inconsistent Approaches to Care: The disparity in how the Act treats children in need of care and protection compared to those involved in crimes raises concerns. Juveniles involved in heinous crimes may not receive the same level of psychological support or rehabilitative care as those categorized under care and protection. This undermines the Act’s rehabilitative goals by placing too much emphasis on punishment, especially in cases where external circumstances like poverty or abuse might have influenced the child’s actions.
- Ignoring Social Determinants: Juveniles often come from backgrounds marked by poverty, abuse, or neglect, and committing crimes might be a result of these challenging circumstances. However, instead of focusing on these root causes, the Act’s provisions on heinous crimes risk prioritizing punitive measures over interventions aimed at addressing the socio-economic factors driving juvenile delinquency. This approach overlooks the core principle that juvenile justice should emphasize restoration and reintegration over punishment.
The Issue of Stigmatization and Recidivism
Another critical concern related to trying juveniles aged 16-18 as adults is the potential stigmatization that comes with it. A child labeled as a “criminal” risk being marked for life, especially if they are tried and convicted as an adult.
Criticism:
- Psychological Impact: Being tried as an adult can severely impact a juvenile’s mental health and future prospects. The child may struggle to reintegrate into society after serving time in an adult correctional system, which could lead to further alienation and recidivism. Studies suggest that juveniles tried as adults are more likely to reoffend, contradicting the stated objective of the juvenile justice system to reform and rehabilitate.
- Exposure to Adult Criminals: Juveniles tried as adults are often housed in the same facilities as hardened adult criminals, where they may be exposed to violence, abuse, and negative influences. This further diminishes their chances of rehabilitation and increases the likelihood of continued criminal behavior.
Need for a More Comprehensive Rehabilitation Framework
The Act’s focus on the age-based distinction and the severity of the offense fails to consider the broader context in which juvenile delinquency occurs. There is a need to balance punishment with rehabilitation more effectively.
Criticism:
- Inadequate Rehabilitation Programs: The Act does not sufficiently address the need for long-term rehabilitation programs, particularly for juveniles tried as adults. Simply placing juveniles in Special Homes or Observation Homes may not be enough to prevent future criminal behavior. More comprehensive programs focusing on education, vocational training, counseling, and mental health support are essential to help juveniles reintegrate into society.
- Lack of Aftercare Programs: The Act does not provide a robust framework for post-release care, which is crucial for ensuring that juveniles do not return to a life of crime. Proper monitoring, social reintegration efforts, and support systems must be established to ensure juveniles have the tools to build a better future after release.
Conclusion
While the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 represents an effort to modernize and reform India’s approach to juvenile justice, its definition of “child” and provisions for treating juveniles involved in heinous crimes raise significant concerns. The Act’s age-based threshold, coupled with the potential for trying juveniles as adults, risks undermining the very rehabilitative objectives it seeks to promote. The lack of clear guidelines for assessing maturity, coupled with a growing emphasis on punitive measures for heinous crimes, could hinder the chances of successful reintegration for these juveniles.
The Act would benefit from a more holistic approach, one that balances the needs for accountability and protection with a stronger emphasis on restorative justice. Addressing the social determinants of juvenile delinquency, creating standardized maturity assessments, and expanding rehabilitation programs are all critical steps needed to ensure that the juvenile justice system upholds its commitment to rehabilitation and reform, rather than mere punishment.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
