Juvenile justice: age or gravity of crime?

While considering juveniles crimes, the age of the offender needs to be the primary factor, some people claim, while others are of the view that it the gravity the crime that should matter most.

Discuss both the views on juvenile justice and put in your opinion.

The under-age offenders have always given tough times to the justice systems all over the world. Their age and the seriousness of the crimes they commit are the two aspects that frequently invite differing views while trialing them. Let me discuss these two views and state my position on it.

Initially, no one can ignore the fact that children are children and 99 percent of them do not have any willful intention to commit any crime. In addition, there are a few who happen to get involved in crimes out of circumstances. Apart from this, there have been several cases in which seasoned criminals have instigated innocent children to carry out deadly designs.

All these reinforce the view that children against the law should not be taken as criminals; rather they be given the benefit of what they are; children. But, the jury should be in while seeing the circumstances that have gone into the crime. A wrong verdict may result in two victims, not one.   

The other view based on the gravity of crimes, obviously, deserves due discussion. The thing is, a crime – how simple or grave that may be -- is a crime, no matter who does it. For example, today, a juvenile in his 16 or 17 years is very well informed, physically and rightly grown and emotionally intelligent enough to know how dangerous a crime is. So such an offender needs to be seen seriously and he or she deserves an adult’s trial proceedings.

There is yet another party involved, the victim. He or she deserves justice and the jury cannot forego their concerns and legal rights. A juvenile’s age should not deprive one of. Here as well, the jury should make sure whether the offender had real intention/s or knowledge about the crime he or she did.

The discussion makes me opine that the number of children against the law of the land is negligible, and therefore, while trialing them, the jury has to be earnestly in so as to avoid miscarriage of justice. A crime does not cease to be a crime under any condition. In my view, child offenders need very serious and thread-bare trial.

280 words

Ajaypeesdoc10.5.15 4.am