Pune, Chennai | The Socio-ethical Aspects of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice

The hit-and-run case in Chennai earlier this week brings to mind the recent Pune Porsche case involving a juvenile, and with it, a host of questions related to juvenile crime and juvenile justice. Particularly poignant is the socio-ethical aspect of juvenile crime, i.e., the question — how can society curb the increasing incidence of such undesirable, but preventable crimes?

Unfortunate as such incidents are, the manner in which sometimes the state machinery is quick to make a mockery of the law by undermining the gravity of the crime, to the extent of almost ‘hushing’ up the case, is appalling.

We saw that happen in the Pune Porsche case where the nexus of doctors, police personnel, and the power equation between political and business ‘heavyweights’ did everything they could to cover up the case.

Such attempts to downplay the crime and let off the criminal is common and done with gross impunity, with absolutely no concern for the victims in the case. The use of such morally deviant methods of ‘covering up’ is self-perpetuating, sending a message to the criminals, especially juveniles involved, that getting off the legal hook is easy if one has the muscle and money power.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, does succeed in addressing many matters relating to juvenile crime, and yet, many ethical questions about juvenile crime and juvenile justice remain contested.

There is the much-debated question about the cut-off age, i.e., when to treat a criminal as a ‘juvenile’ and not as an adult. This is important since it impacts the nature and quantum of punishment awarded if convicted. Particularly controversial is the vulnerable age group of 16-18 year olds. Notwithstanding where the law has fixed the cut-off age, be it 16, 17 or 18, the following considerations need to be taken into account when dwelling on the quantum and nature of punishment to be awarded for the crime.

One needs to note that individuals in this age group come from varied socio-economic and psycho-social backgrounds. They may be coming from economically weaker sections of society, broken homes, subject to child abuse of all kinds, and suffering from poor health and illiteracy, all of which make them vulnerable to becoming both ‘agents’ and ‘patients’ of crime.

It is true that not all juvenile criminals belong to such backgrounds. There are also the ‘spoilt brats’ of overindulgent parents and peers. Many crimes are committed by such individuals, as is obvious from the Pune Porsche case.

The relevant question is — are the juveniles belonging to both these groups ‘solely’ responsible for their crime? Or, is the society, its modern-day perception and standards of a ‘good life’, measured only in terms of material wealth and social class, its neglect and indifference towards the growing socio-economic and psycho-socio conditions of ‘deprivation’ of some, its disregard for the importance of moral values, and its failure to inculcate in young adults the sense of ‘duties’ and responsibilities’, all accountable for the growth in the incidence of juvenile crime?

We need to acknowledge that parents, teachers, and elders, in fact, all understanding adults of society, are equally responsible and all have an important role to play in the well-being and healthy upbringing of the child. As the saying goes, ‘Prevention is better than cure’ and ‘a stitch in time saves nine’.

Good parenting and value-laden education go a long way in achieving this collective social good. The idea of the ‘collective good’ is an inspiring, aspirational idea. But this can be achieved only with the acknowledgement of ‘collective responsibility’ for the vulnerable and the less empowered.

We should all be able to empathise with the ‘trauma’ that a juvenile and the family face when one moment of insanity causes loss of human dignity, human life, and material property. There must be a collective and individual effort to curb this growing social menace.

But, despite such efforts, there will be some cases of juvenile crime. How is justice to be meted out to both the criminal and the victim?

Considering the vulnerability of juveniles and society’s share of responsibility in juvenile crime, the juvenile is not tried as an adult where the guiding principle of justice is ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. However, in exceptional cases, the Juvenile Justice Act does allow for this.

What about life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment for the sake of deterrence?

Imprisonment for a juvenile is likely to cause irreparable damage to his/her self-esteem and sense of human dignity. It would be a classic example of treating a human only as a ‘means’ to a larger good and not as an ‘end’ unto him/herself which presupposes the inherent intrinsic goodness in humans to repent, regret, and make reparations for offences committed by them. This is so relevant in the case of a juvenile.

The only reasonable option then is ‘reformation’, requiring a state-sponsored and monitored reform program, giving the juvenile another chance to realise his/her mistake and become a better human being.

But, what about justice for the victim and the suffering family? Does this option provide for that? Perhaps, not immediately.

But, with the passing of time, the realisation dawns that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ which is so much more true in the case of juvenile crime. This realisation should bring about a sense of closure for all, along with the urgent need to make a collective effort to curb and ‘nip in the bud’ this socially undesirable and largely preventable phenomenon of juvenile crime.

[Dr. (Ms.) Shashi Motilal (Retd.) Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi, India, obtained her PhD from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, USA in 1986. She has been Visiting Faculty at the University of Akron , Ohio,  USA and Carleton University, ON, Canada, TERI University, New Delhi and IIT/Delhi and IISP, New Delhi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.]