The Union Cabinet on August 6, 2014 cleared
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014
that gives
powers to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide if a juvenile above 16 years,
involved in heinous crimes like rape, would be tried in an adult court. The Bill comes in at a time when there
has been public outrage over the fact that the minor convicted in the Nirbhaya
gang-rape case was handed a three-year term in a reform home by the Juvenile
Justice Board.
Photo Source: The Alternative |
The public has been made to believe by
media and certain sections of the political leadership that the juvenile was
the most brutal and indeed responsible for Nirbhaya’s death. However, the facts
in this case have been completely overshadowed by false media reporting and
backed by a political agenda that seeks to encash on misdirected public anger.
The juvenile justice board in its
confidential order on August 31, 2013 deprecated the "media hype"
over the minor's role in the said case. The board's order made it clear that in
their testimonies, neither Nirbhaya nor her male friend singled out the juvenile
as the person who had brutally assaulted her with a rod, resulting in an injury
that led to her death within a fortnight. In fact the board asserted that the
juvenile himself had been "brutalized" by the media portrayal of him
as the most brutal assailant of Nirbhaya.
Not surprisingly, neither the media nor
political leaders are in a haste to take the correct facts to the public. The
media in fact has taken very few steps to rectify its stance.
It is also imperative to make it clear that
even in cases where a juvenile commits a crime which is identical to an adult
crime, he/she cannot be treated in the same manner as an adult.
Simply because a 17 year old looks and acts
like an adult, he should not be penalized in the adult criminal system.
Physical changes coupled with adult actions and mental maturity to regulate
those actions are two different things. Also,
contrary to public opinion, a boy who is 17 years and 11 months old is not as
mature as an adult. As neuroscience and psychology explain the structural and
functional changes that occur during adolescence do not all take place at a
uniform pace.
While the public is baying for “strong action”, theirs is an emotional reaction. That the law makers are giving into these emotions by enacting an ill fitted new law, is a step that is regressive and ill conceived. India moved from penal law to reformative law by repealing the 1989 juvenile law and enacting the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000. By enacting the new law, we will victimize juveniles who could not be ‘cared for and protected by’ their families, the society and the government system.
Divashri Mathur
No comments:
Post a Comment