The recent gang rape of a 23-year old girl in New Delhi, India raised a lot of

pertinent questions in the minds of the public.

The people of India called for amendments in the juvenile justice system by
reducing the age of juveniles to 16 years (currently 18 years) whilst child rights
organizations/activists argued to adhere to the present justice system for
children.
we jump to reduce the age of a child to 16 years and make amendments to laws
that affect the greater part of society that needs such laws protecting them. Every
child below 18 must be able to fully realize their rights under the UNCRC (United
Nations Conventions on the Rights of a Child): The Right to Survival,
Development, Participation and Protection. The issue of "neglect" in a country
where a third of the population lives below the poverty line is impossible to
overlook. As the primary duty bearer for Child Rights, the state has to step in and
ensure every child has access to his/her rights. How else can we prevent a
hungry child from becoming an angry juvenile delinquent?
Lowering the age of a juvenile is far more complex than we foresee.
India is a signatory to the UNCRC which mandates the age of a child to be below
18 years. Countries all over the world use this definition. India too, defines a child
between the ages of 0-18 years. By law, he/she is not allowed to vote, sign a
contract or engage a lawyer because he /she is not considered mature enough to
make such decisions. Neuroscience proves in more ways than one, that an
adolescent is at an age where he/she is not mature enough to understand the
consequences of his/her actions. He/she is still vulnerable and can live a normal
healthy adult life if allowed to undergo reformation through corrective measures.
Our reluctance to acknowledge and prevent issues that cause children to turn to
crime is a detriment to society. Why not have the State take responsibilities for
their duty as care takers to our children?
Proper guidance, corrective treatment, education, healthcare etc gives a child a
chance to reform. It is the responsibility of the community and state to provide
these facilities to a child in order to increase the possibility of a better life.
Instead, children are sent to remand homes, observation homes etc where they

are subject to various forms of abuse. How then is a child supposed to grow up
normal if provisions made for him/her lead him to further crime?
Recommendations made by the Justice Verma Committee
Assuming that a person at the age of 16 is sent to life imprisonment, he would be
released sometimes in the mid-30s. There is little assurance that the convict
would emerge a reformed person, who will not commit the same crime that he
was imprisoned for (or, for that matter, any other crime). The attempt made by
Ms. Kiran Bedi to reform Tihar Jail inmates was, and continues to be, a
successful experiment. But we are afraid that that is only a flash in the pan. Our
jails do not have reformatory and rehabilitation policies. We do not engage with
inmates as human beings. We do not bring about transformation. We, therefore,
breed more criminals including juveniles) in our prison and reformatory system by
ghettoing them in juvenile homes and protective homes where they are told that
the State will protect and provide for them, but which promise is a fruitless one.
Children, who have been deprived of parental guidance and education, have very
little chances of mainstreaming and rehabilitations, with the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice Act being reduced to words on paper.
We are of the view that the 3 year period (for which delinquent children are kept
in the custody of special home) is cause for correction with respect to the
damage done to the personality of the child. We are completely dissatisfied with
the operation of children's' institutions and it is only the magistrate (as presiding
officer of the Juvenile Justice Board) who seems to be taking an interest in the
situation. The sheer lack of counselors and therapy has divided the younger
society into 'I 'and 'them'.
It is time that the State invested in reformation for juvenile offenders and destitute
juveniles. There are numerous jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Thailand,
and South Africa where children are corrected and rehabilitated; restorative
justice is done and abuse is prevented. We think this is possible in India but it
requires a determination of a higher order.
********************************************************************************************

"India is a signatory to three international conventions, UN Beijing Rules,

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
and Riyadh Guidelines. These conventions make it mandatory for juvenile
age to be 18."

Changing the juvenile age must not be looked at from the prism of
crime alone, but from several other perspectives as well. Let us consider
the possibilities if the juvenile age is decreased from 18 to 16.
- The right to vote, to obtain a driving license, to marry and to get a job
would be available to 16 year olds as well.
If the rights are extended to 16 year olds as well, that raises even further
concerns than it solves. I don't even want to get into the implications of 16
year olds marrying and driving vehicles.
The thing to note is that this would be the majority case, affecting each and
every one of the 16 year olds in this country and not just the minority case
of juvenile offenders.