Analysing the complexities of trying minors as adults
From a scientific perspective, the argument regarding maturity cannot be avoided. It is a fact that the development of the human brain extends into the 20’s, which is also recognized by the laws in our country, for e.g., the legal age for drinking is 20+ in most Indian states. Based on neuroscientific research by BJ Casey and Christina L. Williams, it is evident that observable changes in the brain’s capacity for change, also known as plasticity, occur throughout the emerging adolescence period (10-25 years). These critical changes in the prefrontal cortex are accompanied by changes in the deep primitive regions of the brain, which are involved in desire, rage, and fight-or-flight responses. Further, Casey’ research found that over a thousand justice-involved youth showed a decrease in their psychopathic traits from 16 to 24 years of age. In the famous American case of Miller v. Alabama, it was held that juvenile offenders have “diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform.” It was concluded that developments in psychology and brain science are consistently uncovering substantial variances between juvenile and adult minds.
From a societal perspective, trying minors as adults takes away the opportunity for rehabilitation of the juveniles. According to a research paper by Redding (2003), rehabilitating juvenile offenders in prisons is hindered by the prevailing violence, fear, and substandard living conditions, making it an ineffective approach. Further, in the case of Salil Bali vs Union Of India & Anr where, it was laid down that the essence of the JJ Act is rehabilitation and not retribution, providing for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with the law into mainstream society.
However, one needs to understand that there will always be exceptions. There will be situations where trying minors as adults becomes necessary, such as when the crime is highly serious or when the minor poses a threat to the safety of the public. In the above-mentioned case of Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, the accused had committed the gruesome murder of a class 2 student in a washroom inside the school premises when he was a 16-year-old. As per the CBI investigation, the perpetrator, who was a Class 11 student at that moment, had killed the child in an attempt to delay the exams and cancel a planned parent-teacher meeting. The JJB passed the order to try him as an adult after conducting a preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the JJ Act. They declared that he had sufficient ability to understand the consequences of his actions.
In other words, gruesome and heinous cases like that of Barun Chandra and Nirbhaya require trying as an adult. There are reasons for this. Firstly, providing justice to the victim, taking into account the harshness of the crime committed, and secondly, a situation where the minor poses a threat to society. From a societal perspective, therefore, trying minors as adults may be considered a necessary evil, rather than something that needs to be completely eradicated.
Therefore, while scientific evidence strongly supports treating juveniles differently from adults due to their ongoing brain development and capacity for reform, societal realities sometimes necessitate a more nuanced approach. The challenge lies in balancing the fundamental principle of rehabilitation with public safety concerns, suggesting that while trying minors as adults should be an exception rather than the norm, it may be warranted in specific, extreme circumstances. The Indian Juvenile Justice system can incorporate certain changes to make sure that trying minors as adults only happens in extreme circumstances.
Solutions to combat this issue
Only if the existing Juvenile Justice system is modified will the faith in the system increase, leading to fewer minors being tried as adults. Acknowledging the arguments regarding the lack of maturity of the juvenile while committing the offence and greater chances for reform, India needs to bring the idea of restorative justice to the juvenile justice system. According to Paul Mccold and Ted Wachtel, restorative justice is a system of justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused by a crime or conflict rather than simply punishing the offender. India could borrow models from numerous justice systems. The Balanced and Restorative Justice Approach (“BARJ”) that is practiced in various states of the USA is one such model that addresses the impact of juvenile offences by engaging the whole community in the rehabilitation of offenders and ensures that the juveniles take responsibility for their actions. The BARJ model focuses on three aspects – (1) Accountability of the juvenile’s actions, (2) developing the juvenile’s competence and (3) community safety. BARJ uses various restorative techniques, one of them being family group conferences, which facilitate parental involvement in juvenile justice. These meetings offer those most impacted by a specific crime (such as the victim, the offender, and their respective family and friends) the opportunity to converse about the crime and determine the appropriate way to hold the offender responsible.
Similarly, the Missouri model, which started in Missouri, is a shining example of the success of the restorative model. According to Children’s Defence Fund, this model is found to have effectively reformed hardened juvenile offenders, with the statistics indicating that fewer than 8% of the youths in the Missouri system return again after their release, and fewer than 8% go on to adult prison. Instead of more traditional correctional approaches, the system uses a rehabilitative and therapeutic model. What makes this different is the use of a ‘trauma-informed’ approach to reform the juvenile. According to American Association of Children’s Residential Centers, a trauma-informed approach integrates an understanding of the impact and consequences of trauma into all interventions.
In sum, India should consider adopting restorative justice models like the ones stated above so that juveniles get a chance to be reformed. These approaches focus on accountability, competency development, and community safety while prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment. By reforming the juvenile justice system with these principles in mind, India can strike a balance between public safety and giving young offenders a chance at reform and reintegration into society.
Conclusion
Trying minors as adults in India requires balancing between justice, rehabilitation, and public safety with a great delicacy. Though amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act post Nirbhaya case opened up doors for the trial of some minors as adults, this would be an exception rather than a norm. The scientific evidence of adolescent brain development combined with success through rehabilitation-focused approaches gives the juvenile justice system a compelling argument for reform rather than retribution.
This incident, as that of the Pune Porsche, warns of the perils of letting public sentiment take over the rule of law established in society. Media pressure and public outcry apart, the difference between a serious offence and a heinous offence, as defined by the JJ Act and the Shilpa Mittal judgment, needs to be preserved. This legal clarity protects the juvenile offender from inappropriate trial as an adult while simultaneously providing scope for dealing with exceptional cases, such as that of Barun Chandra. The way forward in making India’s juvenile justice system stronger will incorporate models of proven restorative justice, such as BARJ and the Missouri model. These have reflected that rehabilitation, when properly implemented, can both reform juvenile offenders and ensure maintenance of public safety. Its focus on accountability, competency development, and trauma-informed interventions will allow India to create a more effective juvenile justice system to serve both young offenders and society at large better.
Finally, while the discretion to try young offenders as adults must remain an available option for worst cases of serious offending, the aim should be strong rehabilitative procedures that afford space for the reformation of young people and provide protection for victims too. This would adhere to both science about the youth development process and also to India’s international obligations set forth in UNCRC, along with providing critical public safety security in extreme exceptions.
Niranjan Erat, a Second-year student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies(NUALS).
