Supreme court refuses to reduce age of juvenile to 16

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

Presently, the minors viz. those below 18 years of age are protected. Some went to supreme Court asking for reduction in age to 16 and not to protect a minor involved in heinous crime. The apex court has refused to interfere. This may be because it is not function of judiciary to make law.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1862137/report-supreme-court-refuses-to-reduce-age-of-juvenile-from-18-to-16-years

It may be right making law is job of parliament. Court can be order to make change in juvenile law. this decision disappoint lot of persons.

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

There is necessity for debate among sociologists, educationists and criminologists as well others on such sensitive issue. The issues involved need action on many fronts.

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

There is necessity for debate among sociologists, educationists and criminologists as well others on such sensitive issue. The issues involved need action on many fronts.

Its important to include parents also in the debates.

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

True... we have an example of the juvenile in the recent Delhi incident where he in spite of being underage was the one who inflicted the most damage to the poor victim. Actually, all such cases must be studied and depending upon the degree of violence and perverseness, the juveniles should be tried. There should not be any hard and fast rule on the basis of age only.

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

There is necessity for debate among sociologists, educationists and criminologists as well others on such sensitive issue. The issues involved need action on many fronts.

Its important to include parents also in the debates.

I mentioned various experts who are also parents and so parents get automatically represented.

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

True... we have an example of the juvenile in the recent Delhi incident where he in spite of being underage was the one who inflicted the most damage to the poor victim. Actually, all such cases must be studied and depending upon the degree of violence and perverseness, the juveniles should be tried. There should not be any hard and fast rule on the basis of age only.

I was reading Charles Sobhrajs biography and according to that, Sobhraj had committed his first murder ar the age of eight !!! He had graduated to other things like drug peddling even before that....I am sure that the circumstances were very adverse during his childhood and there may have been ample reasons for his going the way he did....But we need to realise that leaving them and giving them a chance will not help, instead there should be a programe for reforming them and making them responsible citizens...

Presently, the minors viz. those below 18 years of age are protected. Some went to supreme Court asking for reduction in age to 16 and not to protect a minor involved in heinous crime. The apex court has refused to interfere. This may be because it is not function of judiciary to make law.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1862137/report-supreme-court-refuses-to-reduce-age-of-juvenile-from-18-to-16-years

That could be we be the reason for SC to not going to reduce age in such cases although it needs to be done immediately by amending the law by our law making body, the parliament.

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

True... we have an example of the juvenile in the recent Delhi incident where he in spite of being underage was the one who inflicted the most damage to the poor victim. Actually, all such cases must be studied and depending upon the degree of violence and perverseness, the juveniles should be tried. There should not be any hard and fast rule on the basis of age only.

I was reading Charles Sobhrajs biography and according to that, Sobhraj had committed his first murder ar the age of eight !!! He had graduated to other things like drug peddling even before that....I am sure that the circumstances were very adverse during his childhood and there may have been ample reasons for his going the way he did....But we need to realise that leaving them and giving them a chance will not help, instead there should be a programe for reforming them and making them responsible citizens...

That is so gruesome!! I agree that only giving a chance does not work without proper support and guidance. In India whatever so-called reform or Borstal schools are (as they are called) they in fact damage the juvenile's psyche more than reforming them,. An innocent child who is put into such schools may end up being a hard core criminal when he comes out of it!

Law is based on norms and not exceptions. There are exceptional cases of minors getting involved in very serious crimes. It is not proper to amend law in a way to affect all minors just because a very small majority is matured enough for serious crimes.

Supreme Court does not make law. Hence they did not interfere. It is for parliament to examine the ground reality at present and get views of experts with a view to make any modification in law, if necessary.

It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of any court to frame laws. Here I must highlight another aspect of the problem. I know the decision of the Supreme Court must have been disheartening to many as many were expecting it to lower it to deal with one-off case of a youth who figured notoriously in terms of unimaginable brutality in relation to the Delhi gang-rape victim. Let us remember that judges are not supposed to come under the excessive influence of emotion while deciding on matters. Juveniles are juveniles. All their actions, reactions are based on the kind of society you create for them. In fits of fury you can afford to think that by eliminating them through hanging or otherwise you can rid society of all its vices but is it pragmatic? Even today I come across a report that the wife of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is allegedly murdered by his husband and in-laws!!! How do you respond to this? In what way his conduct is any different from the juvenile rapist?

We must begin from some point or other to make things right. If we blame every thing on society and never rise to set things right, I am afraid we are only counting on dead chickens.

We must begin from some point or other to make things right. If we blame every thing on society and never rise to set things right, I am afraid we are only counting on dead chick

ens.

First, who are 'we' to set things. Second what are our powers? Action has to come from those quarters which matter in setting things right. In rape case the first administrative action begins at the end of the police - to be more specific - the investigating officer - his understanding of the legal provisions which carry a lot of weight in framing of charge-sheets. By the way, going by Indian experience the courts regularly blast police inefficiency and abysmal standard of professionalism. What do you say on that??

It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of any court to frame laws. Here I must highlight another aspect of the problem. I know the decision of the Supreme Court must have been disheartening to many as many were expecting it to lower it to deal with one-off case of a youth who figured notoriously in terms of unimaginable brutality in relation to the Delhi gang-rape victim. Let us remember that judges are not supposed to come under the excessive influence of emotion while deciding on matters. Juveniles are juveniles. All their actions, reactions are based on the kind of society you create for them. In fits of fury you can afford to think that by eliminating them through hanging or otherwise you can rid society of all its vices but is it pragmatic? Even today I come across a report that the wife of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is allegedly murdered by his husband and in-laws!!! How do you respond to this? In what way his conduct is any different from the juvenile rapist?

Offence by those in responsible position and of advanced age is definitely far more serious manner. A juvenile needs be given opportunity for reform. Moreover exceptions are not basis for change in law. A serious crime by certain minor like rape of Delhi girl is no doubt one that evokes resentment and anger but such stray case should not be cause for change in law.

It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of any court to frame laws. Here I must highlight another aspect of the problem. I know the decision of the Supreme Court must have been disheartening to many as many were expecting it to lower it to deal with one-off case of a youth who figured notoriously in terms of unimaginable brutality in relation to the Delhi gang-rape victim. Let us remember that judges are not supposed to come under the excessive influence of emotion while deciding on matters. Juveniles are juveniles. All their actions, reactions are based on the kind of society you create for them. In fits of fury you can afford to think that by eliminating them through hanging or otherwise you can rid society of all its vices but is it pragmatic? Even today I come across a report that the wife of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is allegedly murdered by his husband and in-laws!!! How do you respond to this? In what way his conduct is any different from the juvenile rapist?

Offence by those in responsible position and of advanced age is definitely far more serious manner. A juvenile needs be given opportunity for reform. Moreover exceptions are not basis for change in law. A serious crime by certain minor like rape of Delhi girl is no doubt one that evokes resentment and anger but such stray case should not be cause for change in law.

Quite true! Leniency in dealing with cases of juvenile offenders is predicated upon the belief that these offenders should have a chance to reform themselves by not being subjected to disabling or death penalties. Even in the Delhi-gang-rape case, it is debatable if the juvenile offender who is alleged to have been more cruel than others, would have indulged in that kind of beastliness, had his more aged accomplices not provided the trigger.

It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of any court to frame laws. Here I must highlight another aspect of the problem. I know the decision of the Supreme Court must have been disheartening to many as many were expecting it to lower it to deal with one-off case of a youth who figured notoriously in terms of unimaginable brutality in relation to the Delhi gang-rape victim. Let us remember that judges are not supposed to come under the excessive influence of emotion while deciding on matters. Juveniles are juveniles. All their actions, reactions are based on the kind of society you create for them. In fits of fury you can afford to think that by eliminating them through hanging or otherwise you can rid society of all its vices but is it pragmatic? Even today I come across a report that the wife of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is allegedly murdered by his husband and in-laws!!! How do you respond to this? In what way his conduct is any different from the juvenile rapist?

Offence by those in responsible position and of advanced age is definitely far more serious manner. A juvenile needs be given opportunity for reform. Moreover exceptions are not basis for change in law. A serious crime by certain minor like rape of Delhi girl is no doubt one that evokes resentment and anger but such stray case should not be cause for change in law.

It is right sir that judges should be give their decision on the merits of case. It is also right that juvenile need be given chance to improve. But tell me it is assured that if court excuse juvenile they will improved. It is fact that brain of a child of 15 years are not juvenile.

It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of any court to frame laws. Here I must highlight another aspect of the problem. I know the decision of the Supreme Court must have been disheartening to many as many were expecting it to lower it to deal with one-off case of a youth who figured notoriously in terms of unimaginable brutality in relation to the Delhi gang-rape victim. Let us remember that judges are not supposed to come under the excessive influence of emotion while deciding on matters. Juveniles are juveniles. All their actions, reactions are based on the kind of society you create for them. In fits of fury you can afford to think that by eliminating them through hanging or otherwise you can rid society of all its vices but is it pragmatic? Even today I come across a report that the wife of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is allegedly murdered by his husband and in-laws!!! How do you respond to this? In what way his conduct is any different from the juvenile rapist?

Offence by those in responsible position and of advanced age is definitely far more serious manner. A juvenile needs be given opportunity for reform. Moreover exceptions are not basis for change in law. A serious crime by certain minor like rape of Delhi girl is no doubt one that evokes resentment and anger but such stray case should not be cause for change in law.

Quite true! Leniency in dealing with cases of juvenile offenders is predicated upon the belief that these offenders should have a chance to reform themselves by not being subjected to disabling or death penalties. Even in the Delhi-gang-rape case, it is debatable if the juvenile offender who is alleged to have been more cruel than others, would have indulged in that kind of beastliness, had his more aged accomplices not provided the trigger.

This point is indeed noteworthy, but then there is something called as being conscientious which is a quality found in many including teens. Even if the trigger was provided by the aged accomplices, would a juvenile who was self-conscientious indulge in such heinous acts? Would not that inner voice inside his mind and head stop him from taking part in what was going on?

It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of any court to frame laws. Here I must highlight another aspect of the problem. I know the decision of the Supreme Court must have been disheartening to many as many were expecting it to lower it to deal with one-off case of a youth who figured notoriously in terms of unimaginable brutality in relation to the Delhi gang-rape victim. Let us remember that judges are not supposed to come under the excessive influence of emotion while deciding on matters. Juveniles are juveniles. All their actions, reactions are based on the kind of society you create for them. In fits of fury you can afford to think that by eliminating them through hanging or otherwise you can rid society of all its vices but is it pragmatic? Even today I come across a report that the wife of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is allegedly murdered by his husband and in-laws!!! How do you respond to this? In what way his conduct is any different from the juvenile rapist?

Offence by those in responsible position and of advanced age is definitely far more serious manner. A juvenile needs be given opportunity for reform. Moreover exceptions are not basis for change in law. A serious crime by certain minor like rape of Delhi girl is no doubt one that evokes resentment and anger but such stray case should not be cause for change in law.

Quite true! Leniency in dealing with cases of juvenile offenders is predicated upon the belief that these offenders should have a chance to reform themselves by not being subjected to disabling or death penalties. Even in the Delhi-gang-rape case, it is debatable if the juvenile offender who is alleged to have been more cruel than others, would have indulged in that kind of beastliness, had his more aged accomplices not provided the trigger.

This point is indeed noteworthy, but then there is something called as being conscientious which is a quality found in many including teens. Even if the trigger was provided by the aged accomplices, would a juvenile who was self-conscientious indulge in such heinous acts? Would not that inner voice inside his mind and head stop him from taking part in what was going on?

The juvenile is not considered innocent and he is also tried and punished. But he is not treated at par with adults and is instead tried by juvenile court.