National News
In Ryan International case, Juvenile Justice Board ruling raises pertinent question: Should 16 be new age of adulthood?
Now either you have a law or you do not; there is no middle ground. The decision to try the 16-year-old juvenile accused of killing seven-year-old Pradyuman Thakur on the premises of Ryan International School as an adult does set a precedent.
The decision, taken by the Juvenile Justice Board on Wednesday, has to be seen in the light of legal legitimacy. It must be separated from the deed and the emotional support that the public has for the victim’s parents. For the first reaction of most is to say, ‘fine, the killer deserves no mercy’.
Legally, the Parliament had passed a law in 2015 that stated that heinous crimes committed by 16-year-olds can be seen as acts of an adult. The base for this codicil is that if their conduct mimics that of an adult and is not childlike in its criminal intent then the child is not a child.Shorn of the outrage and the chilling need for revenge, the law has to explain itself.
A citizen of democratic India does not fight for this specific accused, he or she fights for an explanation on why this decision was taken in this specific case when hundreds of young people commit equally dastardly crimes and do not get ‘promoted’ to adulthood. The reason for knowing transcends the popular call and brings into question the necessity for the people to know what the circumstances were that called for this change.
Juvenile justice is, however, predicated on mental health and stability and the ability to ascertain whether the accused was not suffering from a disorder of the mind. Whether bi-polar, a victim of ADHD, schizoid, sociopathic or suffering from any of the hundreds of ailments of the brain, where do we set a yardstick to assess mitigating circumstances? Or does fury and horror at the deed eclipse them all?
Section 14 of the child act mentions the state of the mind but it is now well known and established that mental aberrations are far more subtle than the visual impairments that usually go into our assessments. In this specific case, one has to stress that there is no modicum of sympathy for the accused but a rational argument that the rules of this engagement are fluid and allow lawmakers and judges to play God. Which crime is less gruesome than the other or carried out with less finesse and who will arbitrate? Which grieving family will lose out and which will find cold comfort in the upgrade.
Instead, in a world that has ‘matured’ swiftly, is it time to look at 16 as the age of adulthood. Technology has certainly impacted on us in a dramatic fashion. The travel on the IT highway and its many splendours have made young people au fait with violence at a much younger age. It would be a far more effective deterrent than ‘choosing’ individuals in a sort of bizarre form of judicial roulette.
Here is a quote from the CCL: “The Center for Child and the Law (CCL) has taken a stand against the transfer of children in conflict with law to be tried in the court as adults. Having said that, neither the gravity of the offence nor the previous involvement of the child in violent or abusive acts should be used as criteria for the preliminary assessment by the JJB or the Children’s Court.”
This is not because the CCL wishes to encourage juvenile crime or offer special protection but because the selection must be based on fixed criteria including that of adult influences something almost impossible to calculate.
The rush to change legislation came after the dreadful Nirbhaya case in which one of the six attackers was a minor. But, in its present form, it does not solve the issue.
It becomes necessary for us as a civilised society to revisit the issue. There is nothing sacrosanct about sixteen. If children are growing into adults faster then the law must catch up and recognise that factor.
