Balancing the juvenile act

• The JJ Act was passed in 2000 with the purpose of incorporating into domestic law India’s obligations under international law as a signatory of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice (1985) (known as the “Beijing Rules”) and the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990).

• Underlying these international texts is the legal philosophy that juveniles lack the physical and mental maturity to take responsibility for their crimes, and because their character is not fully developed, they still have the possibility of being rehabilitated.

• This basic principle underlies the juvenile justice systems in many countries, including the United States and the U.K.
• The JJA creates a juvenile justice system in which persons up to the age of 18 who commit an offence punishable under any law are not subject to imprisonment in the adult justice system but instead will be subject to advice/admonition, counselling, community service, payment of a fine or, at the most, be sent to a remand home for three years.
• However, the interest in protection of juveniles has to be balanced with the interest of protecting particularly vulnerable members of society from violent crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age and amending the law when societal conditions radically change over time.
• As per the reports of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) entitled “Crime in India 2011” and “Crime in India 2012,” the percentage of crimes committed by juveniles as compared to total crimes has not significantly increased from 2001-2012.
• According to the NCRB statistics, India is not in the throes of a general crime wave by juveniles. However, the NCRB statistics relating to violent crimes by juveniles against women are very troubling. “

• Crime in India 2011” suggests the number of rapes committed by juveniles has more than doubled over the past decade from 399 rapes in 2001 to 858 rapes in 2010. “Crime in India 2012” records that the total number of rapes committed by juveniles more than doubled from 485 in 2002 to 1149 in 2011.

• As the data suggests, between 2011 and 2012 alone, there was a massive increase in instances of rape by juveniles by nearly 300, which is almost as much as the increase in such cases over the entire previous decade. This increase alone makes amendment of the JJA imperative.

‘Get tough’ approach

Several other countries such as the U.S. and the U.K., which are both signatories to the U.N. Convention, have also faced an increase in violent crimes by juveniles but, unlike India, they have taken action to amend their laws.

Most States in the U.S. have enacted a juvenile code of which the main objective is rehabilitation and not punishment.

Juveniles appear in juvenile court and not in adult court. Juvenile courts do not have the power to impose punishment and can impose only rehabilitative measures or assistance by government programmes.
.However, since the increase in violent crimes committed by juveniles in the 1990s, U.S. States have adopted a “get tough” approach in response.

In most U.S. States, the jurisdiction of juvenile courts is automatically waived when a juvenile above a certain age, usually 13 or 15, commits a violent or other serious crime, and the case is automatically transferred to adult cour

Even the U.N. Convention and the Beijing Rules do not prohibit subjecting children/juveniles to the regular criminal justice system under certain circumstances.

Article 40 of the U.N. Convention provides that a child who has been accused of having violated the penal law shall have the following guarantees: to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law, to be informed promptly of the charges against him and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation of his defence, to have the matter determined without delay by a competent and impartial authority or judicial body,

New pm of australia

For the Australian Labor Party, a crushing defeat was the finale of a tragedy in five acts.

Because the result is more a repudiation of Labor infighting than endorsement of Coalition philosophy, it does not mark a shift to the right.

For new Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott, the results were just rewards for leading a disciplined, stable and united team through three years of national political turmoil and global economic turbulence.

In foreign policy, the results may portend subtle shifts in nuance and emphasis but not a fundamental reorientation. For India, an Abbott government is likely to provide greater ballast.

Kevin Rudd’s convincing victory in 2007 produced high initial popularity, but a shambolic management style and an autocratic-narcissistic personality were the backdrop to Act One. In 2010, with plummeting polls and an alienated cabinet, the party caucus replaced him with Julia Gillard.

Tokyo to host 2020 Olympics

Tokyo on Saturday won the right to host the Olympic Games for the second time, overcoming fears about radiation from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, to land the 2020 edition of the world’s biggest sporting event.

Members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who met in Buenos Aires, chose the Japanese capital, which previously hosted the Games in 1964, over Istanbul, after Madrid was dramatically eliminated following a first-round tie with the Turkish city.

Thousands of Japanese who gathered in Tokyo in the early hours of Sunday erupted in joy, making V for victory signs and shouting “banzai!” (hurrah!), as the result was beamed live from the Argentine capital.

Sources: Various News Papers