Point to Ponder
CHILD RIGHT TO CRIME?
A workshop recently organized by the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) discussed crucial aspects of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill recently introduced in Parlianen.
It concentrated its particular attention on the provisions regarding the age of
criminal responsibility and the core element of juvenile justice with emphasis
on rehabilitation, reformation, reintegration and skill development. The participating NGOs strongly believed the
"proposed bill violated the core principle of juvenile justice in the UN
Convention on Child Rights and also the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which have been ratified by India". ()Post a comment
The deliberations of the workshop have to
be taken note of in the context of the prevailing crime and social situation in
the country. The Bill proposes to reduce the age of criminal responsibility
from 18 to 16 years. India cannot afford to blindly follow the international
charters and covenants disregarding the home truths and requirements to deal
with the increasing number of heinous crimes
of rapes, gang-rapes and murders indulged in by juveniles. In some cases such
crimes perpetrated by juveniles are more cruel and cold-blooded than those
indulged in by adults.
There is force in the argument of a section
of the people that the extent of punishment to an individual should be
commensurate with the crime he committed and not diluted by the juvenile age of
the criminal.
It is true that our laws, as far as
possible, should conform to international standards set by the UN Charter and
covenants. But the latter cannot be allowed to have an overriding veto.
Every country has its own set of laws and
rules to deal with the peculiar social, economic and legal conditions to suit
its requirements of the situation and times. What is true in the countries like
the USA, UK, France, Germany, China or Russia is not — and cannot be —
identical in every aspect in India and other countries.
Even in the matter of human rights, there
cannot be uniformity. Contradictions and divergence in this field are
definitely there in almost every matter in every country. Forget about the
world, even the five permanent members of the Security Council do not have exactly
the same human rights laws and standards.
No country in the world can outsource its
sovereignty to frame laws to any international organization, be it the UN
general assembly, the Security Council or the UN Human Rights Commission.
Neither can it make its laws subservient to international diktats. Nor can the
laws of any country be set aside only because these come in conflict with or infringe
the provisions of any international law and organization.
The organizations like NHRC are coming out
with strange arguments. Is there anything like children's right to crime like
rape and murder?
In fact, it is this permissive and liberal
attitude that is the root cause of increasing number of heinous crimes in which
juveniles are discovered to be involved. It does not, in any way, dissuade them
from committing the crime they do in the country. On the contrary it is
encouraging and motivating them to indulge in criminal activity making them
sanguine to their rights and generating hope that they will get away with light
punishment from the one they otherwise deserve. ***
