[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

The majority of these juveniles who commit such brutal crimes would tend to fall into that 15-18 years age group.

Majority means that there is also a minority under 15 who commit such crimes.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Now ofcourse there would always be have to be a cut off.

Exactly. That was the question I was answering to which you replied to me.


http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifti...ml#post3028584

Originally Posted by drmohitg

the creation of such a band would ensure that most of such juvenile convicts would fall into that bracket. They can then be tried according to there crimes. This would also ensure that we still consider them as juveniles if there crime is not that serious or grave but in cases like this one there has to be a more serious punishment dealt out. the real mockery of the judicial system is when after embowelling a girl you are let free because you are not 18 yet.

Since only most of such juveniles would fall into the band, that means there may be some who fall below the band. So tomorrow, I can see a 14 year 11 month old doing a very similar crime and then he will have to be left off.
That, in my opinion, will be the real mockery of the judicial system, when after embowelling a girl, a 14 year, 11 month old is let free because he is not 15 yet.

Who knows, soon the prevalent anti social element in our country may be wielding armies of close- to- 15s with the promise of untold millions post a 6month detention,no matter what level of atrocities they commit.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

Since only most of such juveniles would fall into the band, that means there may be some who fall below the band. So tomorrow, I can see a 14 year 11 month old doing a very similar crime and then he will have to be left off.
That, in my opinion, will be the real mockery of the judicial system, when after embowelling a girl, a 14 year, 11 month old is let free because he is not 15 yet.

Who knows, soon the prevalent anti social element in our country may be wielding armies of close- to- 15s with the promise of untold millions post a 6month detention,no matter what level of atrocities they commit.

Our judicial system and society at large always follows a certain evolutionary process as time moves on. So ofcourse there would be that 14 year old too some day. And at that time we would have to look at the existing laws once again. Or else what is your solution to this? I believe in reducing the risk as much as possible while still remaining in the realms of current reality. And as of now we are faced with this menace. So we should look to change the existing law to accomodate such a scenario.

What do you suggest?

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by carboy

Majority means that there is also a minority under 15 who commit such crimes.

For those kids it should be their parents/guardians who should be held accountable for their crimes and be punished. Parents are not just to give birth. They are the ones who are responsible for upbringing as well.

Now if an under 15 has no parents/guardians then I dont know what to do!

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by joslicx

For those kids it should be their parents/guardians who should be held accountable for their crimes and be punished. Parents are not just to give birth. They are the ones who are responsible for upbringing as well.

Accountability of parents is valid if kids have followed parents' instructions. Otherwise kids are free citizens too.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Our judicial system and society at large always follows a certain evolutionary process as time moves on. So ofcourse there would be that 14 year old too some day. And at that time we would have to look at the existing laws once again. Or else what is your solution to this? I believe in reducing the risk as much as possible while still remaining in the realms of current reality. And as of now we are faced with this menace. So we should look to change the existing law to accomodate such a scenario.

What do you suggest?

I don't suggest anything. The onus is on those who suggest to show that the suggestions remove whatever problems they are suggesting a change for.

For eg. someone didn't like 18 to be cut off because then 17 years an 11 month old would get away and he felt there was no diff between 18 & 17-11. The same problem would exist in a band of 15-18, because there is no diff between 14-11 and 15.

Someone else didn't like 18 to be the cut off because then the prevalent anti social elements would form armies of 17.5 olds using promises of untold millions. The same problem exists with 15-18 band also.

Someone else suggested that 18 as a cut off is a mockery of justice because a 17-11 would be let off for raping and disemboweling a girl. Again, the band doesn't solve the problem because letting of a 15-11 for raping and disemboweling someone would also be a mockery of justice.

My opinion, irrespective of what band/cut-off you have, there will edge cases which will fall off - so is there a point to changing it to another system which doesn't solve the problem for which the change is suggested.

Also 'what exactly do you mean by realms of current reality'? Is it quantifiable?

Originally Posted by joslicx

For those kids it should be their parents/guardians who should be held accountable for their crimes and be punished. Parents are not just to give birth. They are the ones who are responsible for upbringing as well.

Why only for under 15? Why not for 15-18 band also?
Consider 2 sets of parents. One's 14 year, 11 month old has raped/murdered/pushed rods etc. The parents are chemically castrated. The other parents whose 15 year old has done the same crime would go scot-free.

Originally Posted by msdivy

Accountability of parents is valid if kids have followed parents' instructions. Otherwise kids are free citizens too.

So basically your suggestion is that, unless at some point, the parents have told their child that doing criminal acts is a no-no, everyone (from the time of being born) irrespective of age should be tried as an adult. I am not necessarily disagreeing (at least at this point), but just clarifying.

[mayankk]

So basically maintain the stagnation and argue against any suggestions of change, because the first thought , or draft coming from citizens basically seems inappropriate?
It is always a melee at first, but there is always a middle ground where stagnation, and extremism meld to bring out a solution acceptable to both side.
But arguing to maintain a system that has failed repeatedly, is, strange, to say the least.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by mayankk

So basically maintain the stagnation and argue against any suggestions of change, because the first thought , or draft coming from citizens basically seems inappropriate?

Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by mayankk

It is always a melee at first, but there is always a middle ground where stagnation, and extremism meld to bring out a solution acceptable to both side.

I would hope that my pointing the fallacies in the suggested changes would help us get to the middle ground.

Originally Posted by mayankk

But arguing to maintain a system that has failed repeatedly, is, strange, to say the least.

Where exactly did I argue to maintain a system that has failed? I am arguing against moving to another system which has no solutions for what people think are problems with the current system.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

I don't suggest anything. The onus is on those who suggest to show that the suggestions remove whatever problems they are suggesting a change for.

For eg. someone didn't like 18 to be cut off because then 17 years an 11 month old would get away and he felt there was no diff between 18 & 17-11. The same problem would exist in a band of 15-18, because there is no diff between 14-11 and 15.

You are right about the 14 year 11 month old criminal surfacing up in due time. But its always about narrowing down the odds. As I already stated most of such cases would/do involve adolescents aged 15 and above. So including them in the so called band would take care of most of these cases. And then there is just hope and prayer left to us and to believe that age 15 and below can still be considered children with there minds not twisted enough to commit such heinous acts. And such narrowing down of odds is what we practice in most quarters of life. The reason why most cars have just 2 front air bags and some with just the drivers. That doesn't mean that passengers in the rear are not important but the odds of injury are stacked more in favour of front seat occupants.

The day the 14 year old convict surfaces up we can revisit our laws. There is always that provision available to us right? Laws are supposed to be updated/changed according to the current needs of the society.

Moreover this band thing is a suggestion. I would not hesitate in saying that if found appropriate this can be then extended to include a larger age group of under 18 convicts. No harm in that. But the start has to be made somewhere. Just doing nothing in the fear of a 14 year old monster surfacing in the future is not a good enough reason for me.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Just doing nothing in the fear of a 14 year old monster surfacing in the future is not a good enough reason for me.

Forget the future. Few years back, there was a 14 year old guy who raped a 9 year old girl somewhere in India. He was charged as a juvenile, I think. There was a lot of discussion about lowering the juvenile age to 10 at that time. I don't recall if a band was proposed or not in the discussions at that time.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Accountability of parents is valid if kids have followed parents' instructions. Otherwise kids are free citizens too.

Originally Posted by carboy

So basically your suggestion is that, unless at some point, the parents have told their child that doing criminal acts is a no-no, everyone (from the time of being born) irrespective of age should be tried as an adult. I am not necessarily disagreeing (at least at this point), but just clarifying.

Parents are accountable & must be charged if they have instructed the kids to carry out a criminal activity. I meant only this & nothing else. If parents are not aware what the kid does, how are they accountable? Parents can't keep their kids on 24/7 surveillance & monitor them.

[CaliAtenza]

Originally Posted by mayankk

So basically maintain the stagnation and argue against any suggestions of change, because the first thought , or draft coming from citizens basically seems inappropriate?
It is always a melee at first, but there is always a middle ground where stagnation, and extremism meld to bring out a solution acceptable to both side.
But arguing to maintain a system that has failed repeatedly, is, strange, to say the least.

The system should change, but the problem is, people dont really care. Honestly, they dont. That is what has become of our society. Those who could change the system cant and wont because it benefits them, i.e those with power, influence, and money. They have rigged the system so that they can make use of it to the fullest extent and screw over everyone else. How are we going to overhaul the legal system; i am not a lawyer, but there are vast sections of the IPC that make little to no sense in today's modern world.

As for the minor, i still think an exception should have been made so that he could have been tried as an Adult. It happens more often than not here in the US.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

Forget the future. Few years back, there was a 14 year old guy who raped a 9 year old girl somewhere in India. He was charged as a juvenile, I think. There was a lot of discussion about lowering the juvenile age to 10 at that time. I don't recall if a band was proposed or not in the discussions at that time.

So then I am even more certain that we need to change the existing law to include such rare crimes. How many more "Amanats" it would take us is anybodys guess. I hope its changed now. And to start with let the age group be 15-18 or 16-18 or whatever the experts feel is right. Once you are comfortable with the new law and feel that its for the larger good of the society then you can keep changing it to include more of such extreme cases.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by carboy

What cut off do you suggest?

I think I made it amply clear that onset of puberty is when you start becoming responsible for your actions. If your puberty started at the age of 10, you were definitely more mature physically as well as mentally than other kids of your age.

Agreed, you will say that this means that the person is not a full adult yet. And hence, doesn't deserve the full punishment.

But THIS can be decided by the Judge. We anyway place a great amount of trust on the judge while he passes the judgement of guilty vs not guilty + the punishment. We don't have any jury system here.

An adolescent stealing a car for joy ride is pretty different case from an adolescent drinking and driving and then mowing down people.

We trust our judges to have the analytic ability to differentiate between the cases. And hey, this is the reason why we don't have a blanket "hang to death" sentence for every murder case.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by alpha1

I think I made it amply clear that onset of puberty is when you start becoming responsible for your actions. If your puberty started at the age of 10, you were definitely more mature physically as well as mentally than other kids of your age.

How will the judge determine at what age puberty had happened? They aren't even able to determine the current age.

Originally Posted by alpha1

Agreed, you will say that this means that the person is not a full adult yet. And hence, doesn't deserve the full punishment.

Huh!!! Who are you agreeing with that I will say something when I haven't said it?

Originally Posted by alpha1

We don't have any jury system here.

Do you know why? The Indian law was changed to stop jury trials because of a single highly emotional case because that case fell off the edge. Our legal system is weakened because of this, IMHO

Originally Posted by alpha1

We trust our judges to have the analytic ability to differentiate between the cases. And hey, this is the reason why we don't have a blanket "hang to death" sentence for every murder case.

OK, then it would essentially mean that, if any rich/powerful kids parents can afford to bribe the judge, the kid will be tried as a juve - everyone else will be tried as an adult.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by carboy

1. How will the judge determine at what age puberty had happened? They aren't even able to determine the current age.

2. Huh!!! Who are you agreeing with that I will say something when I haven't said it?



3. Do you know why? The Indian law was changed to stop jury trials because of a single highly emotional case because that case fell off the edge. Our legal system is weakened because of this, IMHO



4. OK, then it would essentially mean that, if any rich/powerful kids parents can afford to bribe the judge, the kid will be tried as a juve - everyone else will be tried as an adult.

1. You don't know how to determine puberty? For males if you produce ejaculate you have started. For females if you menstruate, you have started. You can do a further hormonal analysis if you believe that there will be a majority of cases where guys are adolescent but still cannot produce ejaculate. And no we are not talking about "ejaculating" - but only the ejaculate.

2. Good. You had a chance to say that onset of puberty is not equal to becoming a full adult and thus cannot be handed out full severity punishment. But anyway you chose to waste your words ...

3. I can see that you missed the entire point of my post. I said that we, the citizens of India, anyway trust our judiciary system to resolve the cases. We trust the officials of judiciary = judges SOLELY to decide whether the accused is guilty or non-guilty AS WELL AS decide the punishment.

If we don't have any issues with this, why can't we let the Judge decide whether the case in hand needs to be interpreted as a juvenile folly or act of conscious crime.

4. ??? What is the relevance? Rich and powerful parents can anyway bend and change any rule-book that you create. Whether a judge has the ability to decided ad hoc that the case is rarest of rare and hence requires capital punishment or doesn't require a death sentence for a murder or whether the judge follows the book and requires officially stamped documents and evidence to determine the age and then proceed with the case ...

What you've mentioned is entirely irrelevant.