The most degenerate, atrocious but youngest of Delhi’s rapists was in the news this week for having been awarded glorious confinement of less than three years at a correction home — a place where he will get to indulge in all his juvenile exuberance and delinquencies with greater gusto, including bullying his juniors and harassing the keepers, and come out later as a more hardened criminal.
The spontaneous shame, sadness, rage and frustration felt by the people at the extreme brutality inflicted upon the girl has ebbed. But was that beastly crime the end of such violence against womenIJ If the incidents reported in newspapers everyday are looked at, the answer is a resounding no. Rather, more stories of violence keep emanating from across the country.
Sensitive people individually and organisationally have taken up the fight against this horror and many have advocated dire punishments for curbing such crimes through stringent laws and summary trials, at the same time trying to create awareness for changing the mindset. A debate is also on about the juvenile age to be brought down to 16, which has not found favour with votaries and activists of children’s rights. This aspect deserves our special attention, more particularly as the crimes committed by persons of this age group in recent times has acquired extreme brutality and depravity.
It’s not clear why this demand is not being conceded or being given serious consideration. We must not allow this issue to become a turf war between the activists of women rights and children rights — that will not only be ludicrous but will also harm a serious social cause.
The simple point being missed is that if the delinquent is old enough to nurture the thought (criminal intent) and relish the depraved enjoyment of such act, then he is not young enough to deserve leniency of law and therefore should also suffer the consequences of his grown up wickedness. He is not entitled to double advantage of ‘doing’ an adult act and then claim to be a ‘child’. It not only makes the law illogical and grossly unfair but also acts as double jeopardy for the victim of the crime who suffered gruesomeness and untimely death at the hands of a ‘child’ who claims immunity on account of his age, manipulates the retributive process taking advantage of the lop-sided law and evades punishment. Thus the law as it exists is weighed heavily against the victim of such crimes.
We cannot have a just society unless the law is dynamic and adapts to the newer challenges and demands put on it by societal needs as also by those who constantly try to highjack it — more for the circumventors. The question that needs to be asked at this stage is why and when laws are made and for whomIJ
The common sense answer would be that they are made to establish social order, to make the individuals follow and adhere to societal norms for the good of the largest number. This demands different provisions at different times depending on changing circumstances and social mores. Clearly they are, therefore, made for protecting the society from criminal acts of criminal minds.
And perpetrators of crimes are not convicted on the basis of accusations or allegations but on hard evidence — there is little possibility of an innocent person being convicted, though he may remain in custody for a while during the trial — so the stance taken by some that it will adversely affect the rights of ‘children’ (juveniles) is devoid of merit.
Enough violations have happened destroying lives and families. How many more women have to endure such brutalities before the system relentsIJ While the law relating to rape definitely needs to change, there is a strong case to change the law relating to the age of juvenile, especially for those involved in heinous crimes. We do not need to invent the wheel.
There are many countries which have reduced the age of regular trial forced by seriousness of the increasing crime rate among juveniles. We, therefore, need to come out from this holier than thou position and adopt a more prudent approach to take the bull by the horn. The law has to be more responsive to the challenge being thrown by new typology of crime, symbolised by extreme viciousness, which cannot be tackled by soft peddling and mouthing platitude for rights of those who do not deserve it. It is time to jettison the ostrich like posture and call a spade a spade. Our society will be safe only with such monsters incarcerated for longer years.