Editorial»
No kidding
JUN 14 -
The juvenile justice system is filled with grey areas. The first question concerns the definition of the word ‘juvenile’ itself: who should be considered juvenile, under-18s or under-16s? Or some intermediate age the state decides? Should children who commit serious crimes be tried under juvenile courts or the criminal justice system under which adults are tried? These questions have vexed lawmakers around the world ever since the concept of juvenile courts began to take shape in the United States at the start of the nineteenth century. Initially, the aim of setting up separate courts for juveniles was to keep children away from the damaging influence of the adult prison system and build a dutiful, law-abiding citizenry for the future. Since, the juvenile justice system has undergone many reforms in order to strike a proper balance between protecting the rights of the children and keeping the society safe from the potentially dangerous juvenile ‘criminals.’
Experience elsewhere shows that juvenile courts by themselves are neither sufficient to protect the rights of the children nor to keep them on a straight course. But they do serve a very important purpose. Juvenile courts are in a better position to evaluate cases on the basis of children’s unique psychological makeup than are the criminal counts whose decisions tend to be disproportionately based on cold, hard evidence. That children deserve a little more benefit of the doubt as compared to adults is hard to refute. Equally importantly, social implications of the absence of a proper juvenile court system can be grave.
In Nepal’s case, the Child Rights Act-1991 limits the jurisdiction of the 26 ‘juvenile benches’ established different courts across the country to try minor cases; they are barred from entertaining or deciding on criminal charges against children. The children end up being tried under the criminal justice system built around the needs of adults and handed out punishment and jail terms on par with adults.
Despite the murky areas of the two-tier justice system, its benefits seem to outweigh its pitfalls. The number of crimes committed by children in Nepal is constantly going up. In the period between 1991 and 2005, there were 160 cases of children who came in “contact with the law” (the 1991 Act bars the use of term ‘criminal’ for children delinquents). Since the start of 2006, 100 such cases are reported every month. As the cases increase, the impromptu ‘juvenile benches’ are likely to be stretched to their limit - with neither the time nor the desired level of manpower to handle the cases related to children with the delicacy they deserve. But the government clearly is in no hurry to establish the juvenile court provided for in the same 1991 Act - even after the Supreme Court in 2005 ordered the government to do so. The government, apparently, is short of resources. Yet unless there is a proper juvenile court in place, more children who come in “contact with the law” are likely to find themselves caught between an overstretched and undermanned juvenile justice system and a slow and harsh criminal justice system.
Posted on: 2010-06-15 08:24
Headlines
Advertisements
