Adult Crimes and Juvenile Punishment
25 March 2013 1:23 AM GMT
Prudes. That is what we Indians are. When it comes to accepting the realities about sex, we are an extremely obtuse lot. Despite being a nation obsessed with sex, we do not want to accept that our children are curious and they are experimenting. And they are certainly not waiting for the government to tell them that they have to wait till they are 18 before they start exploring.
The recent Age of Consent debate in parliament seemed like such a waste of time. What has the result of the debate achieved? Only that it provides one more legal provision with which youngsters can be harassed. If the government – both the opposition and the UPA – feels that they will be able to curb the natural curiosity of adolescents with a law, they are seriously wrong. Conversely, if they think that they have been able to prevent the exploitation of under-18s by this, they are again very wrong. No law can prevent a crime and no legal Damocles’ sword can stop teens from trying.
All that has been accomplished is more confusion. Already the Age of Consent issue is so very confusing. For example - a girl can be married at 16 but needs to be 18 to get married. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 says that a 16 year old girl can be married while the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 says that she has to be 18 to be married. Which one to follow? The confusion grows when it comes to boys – he can get married only at 21. So should the government’s decision terming 18 as the Age of Consent be taken as governmental sanction for sex without marriage between 18 and 21?
The issue of age is even more convoluted when it comes to crime and punishment. The Juvenile Justice Act, created to ensure that children who may have committed crimes due to circumstances beyond their control or out of a lack of understanding, are not tried in the same manner as adults. It gives them a blanket of protection. And this blanket of protection has been firmly wrapped around the youngest accused in the Delhi gang-rape. The youngest accused in the case – the one we are told who lured the hapless girl into the bus by calling her ‘didi’ and who inflicted the maximum violence on her – is likely to escape punishment commensurate to his crime by hiding being the Juvenile Justice Act.
If the Delhi gang rape has forced the government to relook at the age of consent – bumping it up from 16 to 18, should it also be a fit case for making similar amendments in the Juvenile Justice Act? Rape is essentially treated as an ‘adult’ crime – after all, we believe ‘sex’ to be an adult act. So when adolescents are raping other children, how should the law look at them – as juveniles or adults?
The author has reported on Delhi-warts and all- for several years. She is now a Journalist-in-Retirement, dividing her time between watching her two-year-old daughter grow and seeing the city she loves evolve
The recent Age of Consent debate in parliament seemed like such a waste of time. What has the result of the debate achieved? Only that it provides one more legal provision with which youngsters can be harassed. If the government – both the opposition and the UPA – feels that they will be able to curb the natural curiosity of adolescents with a law, they are seriously wrong. Conversely, if they think that they have been able to prevent the exploitation of under-18s by this, they are again very wrong. No law can prevent a crime and no legal Damocles’ sword can stop teens from trying.
All that has been accomplished is more confusion. Already the Age of Consent issue is so very confusing. For example - a girl can be married at 16 but needs to be 18 to get married. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 says that a 16 year old girl can be married while the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 says that she has to be 18 to be married. Which one to follow? The confusion grows when it comes to boys – he can get married only at 21. So should the government’s decision terming 18 as the Age of Consent be taken as governmental sanction for sex without marriage between 18 and 21?
The issue of age is even more convoluted when it comes to crime and punishment. The Juvenile Justice Act, created to ensure that children who may have committed crimes due to circumstances beyond their control or out of a lack of understanding, are not tried in the same manner as adults. It gives them a blanket of protection. And this blanket of protection has been firmly wrapped around the youngest accused in the Delhi gang-rape. The youngest accused in the case – the one we are told who lured the hapless girl into the bus by calling her ‘didi’ and who inflicted the maximum violence on her – is likely to escape punishment commensurate to his crime by hiding being the Juvenile Justice Act.
If the Delhi gang rape has forced the government to relook at the age of consent – bumping it up from 16 to 18, should it also be a fit case for making similar amendments in the Juvenile Justice Act? Rape is essentially treated as an ‘adult’ crime – after all, we believe ‘sex’ to be an adult act. So when adolescents are raping other children, how should the law look at them – as juveniles or adults?
The author has reported on Delhi-warts and all- for several years. She is now a Journalist-in-Retirement, dividing her time between watching her two-year-old daughter grow and seeing the city she loves evolve
Next Story
