JUVENILE JUSTICE AND AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: BALANCING ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS

Author: Suhani Rachna, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University

The juvenile justice system faces a conflict between holding young offenders accountable for their actions and the need for rehabilitating and reintegrating them in the society. The age of criminal responsibility determines whether a child can be held liable in the criminal justice system. At this crucial juncture the question arises about determining the age of criminal responsibility. In India, the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) is considered 18 years according to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. While some argue that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be reduced because there is an increasing number of heinous crimes being committed by youths below 18 years. Some of the examples can be the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case where one of the prime accused of the victim was a minor and the Pune Porsche case where a drunk minor led to the death of two individuals. These cases showed the conflict between legal provisions and the essence of right and wrong. However, there are people who argue that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should not be decreased to ensure that young offenders are given a chance to change their fates. They emphasize protecting the rights of children and focus on their rehabilitation rather than prosecution. This research article focuses on this topic trying to draw a balance between imposing accountability on young offenders and also focusing on rehabilitation on the other hand. It deliberates on the issue considering the developmental psychology of the youths about how and why the young generation is moving towards crime and whether reducing the minimum age of criminal responsibility can reduce the child delinquency. 

KEYWORDS

Juvenile Justice, Age of criminal responsibility, prosecution, rehabilitation, developmental psychology, child delinquency. 

Juvenile Justice is the system framed for addressing offences committed by minors, generally people under the age of eighteen years. It focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration of minor offenders into the society rather than giving them harsh punishment. It aims to protect these individuals, understand the reason for their delinquency, offer them support, counselling, education, and work for their rehabilitation. Nevertheless, it also aims to hold minors accountable for their actions and to prevent further offences from being committed by them. 

However, the major question which is being asked at present times is the age of criminal responsibility. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is the age below which a child is presumed to be incapable of committing a crime or having intention to commit a crime (mens rea). Such children are considered incapable of forming mala fide intentions or understanding the nature or consequences of their acts. This is the borderline age where the child can first time get entangled in the criminal justice system. This age varies from country to country and it is very difficult to determine the exact age when a child can be held criminally liable. For this we need to understand the developmental psychology of children. The upbringing of the child, the environment the child sees around him right from the time the child is born, his family, friends, neighbors and school plays a very important role in this developmental psychology and his outlook towards life and people.

The purpose of this research is to understand whether the minimum age of criminal responsibility that is fixed needs to be altered. The million dollar question remains that at exact what age a child should be considered mature enough to be held criminally liable in courts. There is no formula to determine a particular age for imposing criminal liability on any child.  Deliberation is being done to fix the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) but the global community has reached no solution. Each and every country has fixed the age according to their system, beliefs, customs and convenience. This research article deliberates on the same topic and tries to understand the reason for this disparity and what could be the solution to it. Further this article discusses whether the minimum age prescribed by different countries should be increased or decreased from what they are at present. This article throws light on the probable reasons for raising or reducing the threshold set by countries. 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 is a legislation which is aimed to protect minors who are at conflict with law. This Act defines any person below the age of eighteen years as a child. The children who are under the age of eighteen years and are accused of committing offences and violating laws are dealt with under this Act. The Act also provides that children below eighteen years but above sixteen years of age when committing heinous crimes can be tried as an adult. However, Section 20 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 states that nothing is an offence which is done by a child below the age of seven years. It grants absolute immunity to a child who is below the age of seven years. Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 grants immunity to a child above the age of seven years and below the age of twelve years where the child has not attained enough maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their act. 

Moreover these child delinquents are not put in the same category as adults. They don’t face the trail in adult courts like adults. There are different provisions and procedures framed for them. As it is assumed that they don’t have the same level of maturity and understanding as an adult, they are not subjected to severe punishments. Punishments like community service, fine, counselling or a maximum three year detention in remand home can be given to them in serious cases. The Act strictly provides for special treatments to juvenile offenders and provision for their protection, counselling and development. 

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) differs in different countries of the world. The age ranges from being as low as six years in some countries to even being as high as eighteen in many countries. For example, in the United States of America, the MACR varies from one state to another with some being even six and many being 12-14. Other countries like Nigeria have fixed it at 7, the United Kingdom has fixed this age at 10, with an exception of Scotland fixing it at 12. Australia has fixed the age at 10, Canada and South Africa at 12, Germany and Italy at 14, France, Russia and China at 13, 14, and 16 respectively.  The reason for this variation is that there is no universal agreement on the age when a child is considered mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. Other reasons which constitute the cause of this disparity can be the legal and cultural differences and can be subject to different considerations and circumstances. It is very difficult to determine a particular age of maturity for children as we know every child is different and a particular age cannot be considered whole and sole for determining maturity of a child. 

The first and foremost reason in favour of raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is analyzing the developmental psychology of children. Developmental psychology means the study of change and development in humans throughout their lives, particularly in childhood. It not only focuses on physical development but also on the social and emotional development of children and trying to understand how one child is different from another. There is no particular age where all children can be said to have attained the stage of maturity. Children below a particular age do not possess the maturity and understanding to understand the nature of their act. Moreover they are not considered as capable of forming any malicious intent nor have a developed sense of reasoning and logical understanding to understand the right and wrong of their act. 

Also, raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is considered essential for the protection and welfare of the child. Early exposure to the criminal justice system can show long term mental health effects on the child. Such exposure can become reason for further violent or criminal activities committed by the child. Instead counselling, support and advice can help children understand the wrongfulness of their act and can pave the way for a bright future for the child. 

The young minds are full of questions and curiosity. At this age a greater effort is required to understand the children and there is a need to show them empathy and understanding if they go wayward. The path of harsh punishments may not be appropriate for them. Instead, trying to give them a chance to change themselves, making them realise the gravity of their actions and making ways for their rehabilitation and reintegration in the society would be a better option. These steps can also help the system by reducing their workload and help them to gain public trust by helping these vulnerable groups of people from trauma ensuring their protection. 

We have already seen how raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility can be beneficial for the children and society. But there are many reasons which emphasize that raising the age of criminal responsibility can prove to be a bane for all of us. There are various arguments that the MACR should not be raised. One of the most important reasons is putting accountability on the young offenders. If the children who commit offences are not punished adequately it can lead to a rise in crimes committed by juveniles. When they think and know that their actions are not subject to punishment, such a situation can lead to an increase in offences committed by them. They can think they can get away with any act committed by them just because they are juvenile. It is said by many people that if a person is capable of committing any act, then he is definitely capable of facing consequences of that act. 

Another important reason is that providing protection of minor offenders is injustice for the victim. For example, in the Pune Porsche case the minor’s actions lead to the death of two people. Although he was a minor who apparently needed to be protected from the harsh criminal justice system, the loss of two lives cannot be compensated. It becomes injustice done against the victim on the part of the system which protects a juvenile offender. 

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is a treaty about the protection of children and child rights. It is a human rights treaty based body about the rights of children. It also deals with the rights of children who are in the juvenile justice system. It prescribes that such young children should be treated fairly and be given the opportunity of being heard. Measures should be taken for the rehabilitation of such children and for their reintegration into the society. It aims to avoid severe punishment or detention of the child and to work on the education and development of the child. The UNCRC focuses on creating awareness about child rights and taking measures for the same. There are many provisions of UNCRC which deal with the juvenile justice system. Article 37 focuses on protection of children in conflict with law and in the criminal justice system. Article 39 emphasizes on the right of legal assistance of the child and the absence of liberty of a child. Article 40 is about the fair treatment of a child and the right of being heard. Article 2 and Article 12 is about protection against discrimination and the right to expression and the right of being heard.  Various other provisions are about protecting the juvenile offenders and working for their benefit. The UNCRC emphasizes on protecting the rights of juvenile offenders and to create a safe environment for them where they get the opportunity to change themselves and develop their lives for a better future. 

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is a debatable topic. It differs from nation to nation and is influenced by many factors. Developmental psychology research plays a significant role in this issue. It shows that children below a particular age do not possess the maturity to understand the consequences of their acts. They lack the maturity, foresight, self-control, sense of decision making and the understanding of right and wrong. Critics argue that such children deserve rehabilitation instead of punishment. While the opposing people argue about accountability, justice and safety for all. However the UN Convention on Rights of Child and other documents, statutes, conventions and other literature supports the minimum age to be at least fourteen years. The global community and scientific research often align towards prescribing a higher age of criminal responsibility and enforcing rehabilitation measures for juvenile offenders. 

This research article relies on secondary sources of data like published articles and research papers to gain information on this topic. These documents have been an important source of information for understanding the Indian situation, global concerns and the arguments in support of or against the issue in question. Some provisions of the legislations and conventions like the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the UN Convention on Rights of Child, 1991 have also been referred to for the purpose of this research. 

In this research article, we have discussed the minimum age of criminal responsibility in India and all over the world. We have also discussed the arguments for and against the raising of Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. Different countries and different legislations prescribe different ages of criminal responsibility due to various reasons like different legal structure or cultural values. The raising of MACR is an effective measure to protect children who are in conflict with law and to save them from the harsh criminal justice system and to ensure their development and better future. However, lowering down the MACR can ensure accountability of young children in criminal matters and can help reduce the number of crimes committed by juvenile offenders. The conflict continues and no particular threshold has been found yet. However scientific research shows that lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility can be detrimental to children. A higher age limit along with good rehabilitation measures and address this issue more effectively, along with holding youth offenders accountable and ensuring a safe place for one and all. 

• Revisiting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in India: Bridging Law, Science and Global Ethics, Centre for Child and Youth Justice, NALSAR (n.d.), https://ccyj.nalsar.ac.in/revisiting-the-minimum-age-of-criminal-responsibility-in-india-bridging-law-science-and-global-ethics/.

• Amy Nethery & Stephanie Quirke, Youth, Justice and Immigration: Australia’s Criminalisation of Children Seeking Asylum, Austl. & N.Z. J. Criminology (2023), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10345329.2023.2272362.

• Tsitsino Kapanadze, The Problem of Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and the Principle of the Best Interests of the Child, Law and World J. (2022), https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/347.

• Sujita Kumar Kar et al., Juvenile Justice in India: Legal and Mental Health Perspective, Indian J. Psychol. Med., https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9848384/.

• Ariane B. Thomas, Raising the Age Without Raising the Age: Carceral Logics and Neoliberal Mechanisms in Juvenile Legal Reform, Crit. Criminol. (2024), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10575677241282285.

• Developmental Psychology, Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology.

• Juvenile Justice System: Balancing Rehabilitation and Accountability, The Legal Quorum, https://thelegalquorum.com/juvenile-justice-system-balancing-rehabilitation-and-accountability-5/.