Critics and Supporters of the Amended Act

The passage of the amended Juvenile Justice Act which treats children aged between 16 and 18 as adults for heinous crimes, brought out sharp divisions in the legal fraternity.

The section opposing it felt that it would adversely impact the rehabilitation of juveniles in conflict with the law.

Some questioned the discretionary powers given to the Juvenile Justice Board to transfer them to criminal courts for trial and punishment. Their contention was that as the JJB was presided over by the chief judicial magistrates of districts, there was a high probability of these children being transferred to adult courts.

The dissenters argued that overly harsh punishment was unlikely to prove to be a deterrent, and more than likely to push the children into becoming hardcore criminals.

This section critiqued the Act for choosing to be retributive rather than reformative.

However, those who back the amended Act point to reports saying that the most aggressive among the juveniles who brutalised the young medic in 2012 was a little over 17 years. This boy is believed to have taken the lead in luring the unsuspecting victims into the bus and taken part in the crime as aggressively and savagely as the others.

First convictions

The first reported convictions under the new Act came earlier this year, when two boys from Madhya Pradesh, who would previously have got away with probation for being minors, were sentenced to life in prison. They were booked for fatally stabbing their schoolmate on December 5, 2016 over a petty monetary issue.

Though both were dependent on drugs, their blood samples on the day of the crime showed that they were not at the time under its influence. The prosecution was successful in establishing that while committing the crime they were fully aware of the consequences of their act.

The court took less than three months to give its verdict, awarding them rigorous life sentences under section 302 (murder) of the IPC and imposing a fine of Rs.10,000 each.

Besides, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the court awarded them an additional three-year sentence and fined each of them Rs.5,000. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Children a Chance - Part 5

Mapping the Size of Child Drug Use