Justice system has failed to reduce juvenile crime

There is not a single dull day for most of us dabbling in criminal justice (CJ) matters. This is how it should be in a world where conflict and crime have become intertwined with our lives, and the whole of CJ system is groaning under the burden of a host of contentious trends and events. The latest controversy that is hogging public discourse is the bill approved by the Union Cabinet to amend the Juvenile Justice Act, whereby, juveniles in the age group 16-18 will not any longer enjoy immunity from facing trial in respect of a heinous crime – such as homicide and sexual assault -- committed by them, and are liable for a prison term of seven years or more, if convicted of such crime. 

I sense abundant support to the move from those members of the public, who had either been traumatised by such crime in the past, or consider themselves prospective victims, if law was not made sufficiently deterrent to ward off young people who have strayed into crime. Such endorsement is a measure of the public disgust with loopholes in our criminal law which facilitate some hardened criminals  -- juveniles or otherwise -- get away with murder. Mind you, our conviction rates in respect of such crime, especially rapes, are woefully low. 

Alongside this heartwarming support to government, there is the usual spectacle of some ‘activists’ – who do not lose a single opportunity to snipe at the establishment -- crying foul over this most welcome change to criminal law dealing with juvenile misdeeds. 

In a dynamic and turbulent world the statute book has to keep ticking. It cannot remain static and insensitive. This is what the amendment to the JJ Act seeks to do. We have had far too many juveniles getting mixed up with violent crime. Nirbhaya is one cruel example that shook the nation’s conscience two years ago. Public outrage over the token punishment imposed on a juvenile who teamed up with adults to perpetrate such cruelty on a hapless woman -- who lost both her innocence and life -- was so strident that there was an immediate outcry that age should not matter when it came to handling brutal crime, and justice to a juvenile could not be at the cost of justice to a victim, adult or juvenile. 

Somewhat analogous to what is happening in India is the huge controversy currently raging in the UK over the recent decision of the Crown Prosecutor Service (CPS) not to proceed against Lord Janner (86), a veteran Labour politician, for his many alleged child sex crimes that he committed more than two decades ago. This lenience shown to him was on the ground that he was suffering from dementia. Although his age may have also weighed in while the decision was made, the British public won’t buy this. In the opinion of the latter, crime is crime, and no mercy should be shown to its perpetrator. Universally there is now a numerically strong school of thought that the criminal justice system has failed to perform its principal role of reducing crime, and that it was playing into the hands of armchair critics touting reformation and rehabilitation as the principal tools to counter recidivism and prevent new recruits being drawn into criminal activity. 

The proposed amendment to our Juvenile Justice Act is not arbitrary. It is not as if peremptory action will be taken against a juvenile, the moment he is accused of a serious crime. The matter will be placed before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned, which, in consultation with experts in the field of child psychology, decide whether the offender should remain with a juvenile court or be transferred to a normal court meant for adults. Even giving allowance to the fact that such assessment of the maturity or otherwise of the mind of a juvenile, who is in the docks is an inexact process, one cannot ask for a more reasonable procedure. Of course, this is provided those involved in the process are men and women of integrity and who can take a holistic view of the case before them. The argument that the change proposed by the government smacks of retribution is one that rests on a simplistic overview that is difficult to accept. Undoubtedly we need an in-depth study of the factors that promote juvenile crime. That should not however shackle the State’s hands in its efforts to doing justice to victims of crime. 

The society’s effort here can hardly be overemphasised. Let each one of us pledge to educate and offer shelter to one street child. Such act of kindness will be more than a drop in the ocean, and will at least marginally reduce juvenile crime. Charity begins at home and not in public platforms. 

The writer is a former CBI Director