INTRODUCTION
A person is not entirely accountable under the law when they are under the legal age of eighteen. Therefore, instead of treating them as adults, a child who is accused of criminal activity is taken to a Child Care Centre. The majority of countries and India have prepared unique judicial systems for juveniles, who are above the age group of sixteen to eighteen, but with emphasis only on rehabilitation and not on punishment. While “minor” generally refers to individuals who have not reached majority, “juvenile” often applies to older adolescents, particularly those who would be subject to institutional sanctions. Around the world, the conceptual foundation of juvenile justice systems is that juvenile offenders are amenable to reform and should be returned to society. A comparative study of all existing frameworks for juvenile justice in countries like India, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the UAE reveals that there are different approaches shaped by cultural and legal norms.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA
Juvenile justice in India was based on Hindu and Muslim law, until the rule of the British. There, families were held fully responsible for children’s misconduct. British rule brought much more systematic action for juvenile delinquency first with the enactment of the Apprentices Act, of 1850 for offenders from the age of 10 up to 18 years of age, and the Indian Penal Code of 1860 established specific age limits for criminal capacity by excluding children below seven. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 was a reformative step wherein cases involving persons less than 15 years of age were to be tried separately and punishments meted out were more rehabilitative rather than punitive. The Reformatory School Acts of 1876 and 1897 furthered this by sending such young offenders to reformatory schools, giving greater emphasis to rehabilitation rather than imprisonment. Post-independence, constitutional directives had been made in Articles 15(3), 21, 24, 39(e) & (f), and 47, which mandatorily highlighted that juveniles require special care and protection. In 1960, the Children’s Act came in as legislation initiating the observation homes as well as juvenile courts which led to the centralization of juvenile welfare and education. This led to the creation of the 1986 Juvenile Justice Act of India, including the UN’s Beijing Rules, and enforcing rehabilitation rather than punishment. The Juvenile Justice Act 2000 further increased the importance of care, protection, and a child-friendly system that aligns India with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The current system’s main objective is rehabilitation while using the Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees as tools to achieve the same.
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
- Principle of Presumption of Innocence: All persons shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, ensuring fair treatment during legal proceedings.
- Principle of Dignity and Worth: Juveniles shall be treated with dignity and respect, acknowledging their inherent value as individuals.
- Principle of Participation: Juveniles have the right to participate in decisions that affect them, including in judicial proceedings and welfare decisions.
- Principle of Best Interest: Decisions made under the Act must prioritize the best interests of the child, ensuring their well-being, safety, and development.
- Principle of Family Responsibility: The biological family or adoptive or foster parents are primarily responsible for the care and protection of children and should be involved in rehabilitative processes.
- Principle of Safety: Juveniles must be safeguarded from harm, abuse, and exploitation throughout their treatment and rehabilitation.
- Positive Measures: Authorities shall take proactive steps to support juveniles’ development, ensuring access to education, skill development, and social integration.
- Principle of Non-Stigmatising Semantics: The language used in legal and social processes should avoid labels that stigmatize the juvenile, focusing on their rehabilitation potential.
- Principle of Non-Waiver of Rights: Juveniles cannot forfeit or give up their rights, which remain protected throughout the legal process and rehabilitation.
- Principle of Equality and Non-Discrimination: All juveniles must be treated equally, without discrimination based on their background, or circumstances.
- Principle of Right to Privacy and Confidentiality: Juveniles are entitled to privacy, and their personal information must be kept confidential, ensuring protection from public exposure.
- Principle of Institutionalisation as a Measure of Last Resort: Juveniles should be placed in institutions only when necessary. Greater preference shall be given to non-institutional measures for rehabilitation.
- Principle of Repatriation and Restoration: Efforts should be made to restore the child to their family or community, if possible, once their rehabilitation has been completed.
- Principle of Fresh Start: Juveniles shall be allowed a new beginning after rehabilitation, free from the negative impacts of their past mistakes.
- Principle of Diversion: Juveniles shall be diverted from formal judicial proceedings when appropriate, to restorative or rehabilitative alternatives.
- Principles of Natural Justice: The right to a fair trial is vested in juveniles and due process, including the right to be heard and represented in all legal matters affecting them.
COMPARING JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
There is a wide variation in juvenile justice systems across the world. This naturally depends on the cultural values, social norms, and legal frameworks of their respective countries. In some countries, it is viewed as a social problem that ought to be addressed, whereas others regard it as a criminal activity that deserves severe consequences.
India: Juvenile justice in India also involves rehabilitation rather than punishment. It believes that juveniles are children, and are not mature enough to shoulder the complete blame for their crimes. The newest endeavour, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, also adheres to the same ideology and follows modern international expectations set forth by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under this law, all those below 18 years are termed as minors but juveniles from 16 to 18 years of age can be tried by adult courts for grave crimes like murder or rape depending on their mental maturity.
United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE’s juvenile justice is based on Islamic Sharia law and focuses more on rehabilitation. According to the Juvenile Delinquents and Vagrants Law (Federal Law No. 9 of 1976), whoever is found to be under 18 is considered a juvenile. Cases related to children are usually taken up in courts with a primary motive to effect corrective rather than punitive action since the options of life imprisonment or capital punishment cannot be availed of when it comes to children. They are usually given education or subjected to some form of corrective action. They are placed in reformatories so that they may be equipped to be back in society once again.
United Kingdom (UK): The juvenile justice system of the UK presents a different arrangement for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The UK has a very low age of criminal responsibility, and there is a constant debate among parties about juvenile treatment, especially those who have committed grave offences and may end up being tried in adult courts. Most cases in the UK end up in the Youth Courts for the country of England, focusing on rehabilitation. Young Offender Institutions take these young offenders with interventions and training to prevent the repetition of offences.
United States: The US has a very complex juvenile justice system due to its federal character where laws differ by each state. The JJDPA (1974) provides an outline that opens opportunities for community-based programs, probation, and therapy. Provisions regarding the admission of juveniles to a trial by a jury like adults are very controversial. Most states are still regarded as rehabilitation-oriented, although the quality and accessibility vary widely from state to state.
ANALYSIS
The diversity in approaches toward handling young offenders in different countries is reflective of juvenile justice systems in line with cultural values, legal frameworks, and societal perceptions of juvenile delinquency. In India, rehabilitation and reform have slowly gained importance, particularly with the passage of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in 2015. Here, the system is more determined to protect the rights of juveniles who have a chance at rehabilitation rather than penalization of young offenders. Such systems incorporate the principles of presumption of innocence, dignity, and safety, reflecting a balance between the protection of a child’s best interests and the responsibility to be accountable for his or her acts. The juvenile justice systems of the world, which are different in many respects, have this common aim protect the rights of young offenders and foster rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
CONCLUSION
Though India, and the UAE, focus much on rehabilitation measures, other developed countries, like the UK and the US, focus much more on the balance between rehabilitation and public safety. In India, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 is a progressive model that focuses on child welfare and reform. Although the question of trying juveniles as adults when they commit serious crimes remains an evolving issue across different parts of the world, the common objective is uniform: to reintegrate young offenders into society as law-abiding citizens, prioritizing their development and well-being.
Author(s) Name: Cordelin Rea R S (Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai)
