Farrington (1977) observed that those first convicted between the ages of 14 and 18

increased their self-reported delinquency relative to a matched group of unconvicted males in a

cohort of 411 boys who grew up in a working-class neighbourhood of London. The
same conclusion was reached when researchers looked at the impact of first convictions
between the ages of 18 and 21. (Farrington et al., 1978). These studies, on the other
hand, were intended to see how being publicly labelled as a criminal affected people.
They are inadequate for the current situation because they do not consider the kind,
intensity, or duration of contact between juvenile offenders and the juvenile justice system. It
will be able to do adequate analyses on data from the Edinburgh Study of Youth
Transitions and Crime within the next few years (Smith and McVie, 2003).Young offenders'
experiences with juvenile justice systems are likely to be significantly different from
the flagship programmes that are frequently picked for evaluation studies. "A national
examination of the circumstances of incarceration indicated that many adolescent
detention facilities did not fulfil minimal professional requirements" in the United States
(Krisberg and Howell, 1998: 347). Although there is more information accessible for the
United States than for most other countries, there is no doubt that things are just as bad, if not
worse, in other countries. The re-offending rates of young persons released from
correctional facilities have been studied extensively in the United States. Many of these
studies appear to show a suppression or slowing of offending for a period after release, and
statistical techniques have been used to determine how much of this slowing is due to natural
ageing and how much is due to a mathematical quirk known as "regression to the mean"
(offenders tend to be captured by the system at a time when their offending is close to its peak,
so there will always tend to be a decline afterwards). However, as Krisberg and Howell (1998)
note, the interpretation of the data is still debatable, and the issues will not be resolved until
better research methods are adopted. A comparative study based on two longitudinal research
studies in Bremen, Germany, and Denver, Colorado, provides the most robust evidence yet
known about the effects of juvenile justice processes (Huizinga et al., 2003). Both
studies followed high-risk groups of young people from adolescence through early
adulthood. Both have collected data on self-reported offending and encounters with the
juvenile and adult criminal justice systems at various phases of a child's development.
Bremen's juvenile justice system is forgiving and geared toward keeping young offenders
out of the criminal court system. Denver's system, on the other hand, is harsher and more
punishment-oriented. In Denver, many acts are illegal for kids, but they are not regarded
criminals or deviants in Bremen. Young offenders in Denver are more likely to be arrested,
cited, or detained, and to end up in juvenile court, where they will get an intermediate-level
sentence, such as community service. In Bremen, the prosecutor dismisses the vast
majority of juvenile offenders (ages 14–17) with a warning or a direction such as community
service. Despite these significant disparities in the court system's response, the level of
offending for equivalent offences is comparable in the two cities. The number of
offences committed is larger in Denver, but this is mostly due to the fact that a lot of
behaviours in Denver are illegal, but not in Bremen. As a result, Bremen's significantly more
lenient system did not result in noticeably increased rates of offending. In Denver, police
encounters and arrests begin at a younger age than in Bremen, and arrest rates are substantially
higher in Denver: by the age of 18, 34% of males in Bremen had
ResMilitaris,vol.13,n°3,March Spring 2023191been arrested, compared to 73% in Denver. The
two studies employed a longitudinal design to look at the effects of arrest and varying
levels of punishment on later behaviour. Various statistical procedures were employed to
evaluate the effect of arrest after other factors were taken into account, such as creating
a matched control group of young people who had not been arrested in one type of
analysis. In both cities, arrest had minimal impact on later delinquent behaviour. Arrest
tended to perpetuate or aggravate delinquency when it had an effect. There were also
comparisons made between those who were not arrested, those who were dismissed or
diverted, and those who were given a more significant consequence. It was impossible to
differentiate more sharply between different degrees of sanctions in Bremen due to the
excessive leniency of the response. The results were identical to those obtained in the case of
arrest. They discovered that the severity of the punishment had minimal impact on future
criminality. When a link between sanctions and delinquency was discovered, those who
were given harsher penalties tended to stay in delinquency longer or have higher levels of
future criminal activity. Although the data on this topic is limited, the likelihood of
police interaction in the two cities was likely similar, even if the subsequent repercussions of
police involvement were vastly different. ‘It may not be the severity of sanctions, but rather the
sheer certainty of a response for delinquent behavior that is important both for the
offender and for general deterrence in society at large,' Huizinga et al. say (2003: 5).It's
possible that a study like this provides a more accurate picture of juvenile justice's effects than
the evaluations of various interventions and programmes outlined in the previous section. The
findings do not suggest that a policy of' minimal intervention,' defined as overlooking or
dismissing juvenile delinquency, or responding in consistently or after extended delays,
is likely to be helpful. They do, however, suggest that a system that deals with youth
misbehaviour quickly and efficiently while still being relatively forgiving could be just as
effective as one that is much harsher.
1.4 Juvenile Crimes in India Several small and serious crimes, such as theft, burglary,
snatching, robbery, dacoity, murder, and rape, are committed on a regular basis
throughout India. And the awful fact is that all of these crimes are committed by children
under the age of eighteen. There is also a trend among minors that those between the ages of 16
and 18 are more likely to be involved in terrible criminal crimes. According to data from the
National Crime Records Bureau, of the 43,506 offences perpetrated against minors under
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Special Local Law (SLL) by juveniles in 2013,
28,830 were committed by those aged 16 to 18. According to the data, the number of
adolescents found in violation of the IPC and the SLL increased by 13.6 percent and 2.5
percent, respectively, in 2013 compared to 2012.On December 16, 2013, an inhumane gang
rape of a young girl was committed. This was a particularly heinous event that horrified the
nation's collective conscience. It was eventually discovered that one of the five accused was a
juvenile, and he was the most heinous. A kid was implicated in yet another horrible gang
rape case, this time known as the Shakti Mill Rape case. These and other recent events
have sparked a public debate about
ResMilitaris,vol.13,n°3,March Spring 2023192whether the current Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection) Act, 2000, should be amended to treat people under the age of 18 as minors
or juveniles.

1.5 Reasons for Juvenile Crimes Interdisciplinary research on juvenile delinquency

demonstrate that numerous behavioural changes in juveniles/adolescents occur around the
world as a result of the abrupt changes in their bodies caused by the hormonal surge
associated with puberty. The changes are most visible in physical characteristics, such as
teenage height and weight, and are quickly followed by other sexual and physical
maturation changes. These bodily shifts are accompanied by mental shifts as well.

1.Social Factors
Juveniles might create a delinquent subculture as a result of cultural deprivation and
status frustration (Albert Cohen, 1955). Due to peer pressure, they frequently embrace
deviant tendencies. According to Walter B. Miller (1958), certain youngsters (typically from
the lower class) turn mainstream culture on its head, giving up whateveris valued and viewed as
positive by society in general, and replacing it with the polar opposite value system. As a result,
if society upholds certain morality, juvenile delinquents abandon these principles and strive to
thrive in the areas of toughness, outsmarting their peers and engaging in activities that
delight them (defined as focal concerns by Miller). Recent studies in the United States
(Ling Ren, Hangowel Zhang et al, 2016) have used delinquent subculture theory to a
new field of juvenile attitude toward the police in China (Ling Ren, Hangowel Zhang et al,
2016).Cloward and Ohlin (1960) believe that juveniles' delinquent tendencies are influenced by
the opportunities available in their environment. If youth have the opportunity to study
unlawful behaviours, they may become criminals. If they don't have these chances or
can't succeed in organised crime, they may engage in street brawls and hooliganism.Other
research suggests that societal variables such as poverty and a lack of education contribute to
adolescent misbehaviour (Ombato, John Onyango et al 2013). Substance usage habits make
youth more likely to commit crimes. Higher rates of delinquency are linked to broken
families. Other studies (World Youth Report, 2003) have underlined the negative role of
family, stating that juveniles who receive less familial supervision, or who live in
dysfunctional family environments or in disadvantaged homes are more likely to engage
in delinquent behaviour.

2.Psychological Factors There are also psychological factors for delinquency, which can
be explored using Freudian ideas such as the id, ego, and super-ego. When the id (the
instinctive portion of a person's personality) grows too powerful and the super-ego (the
socially taught element of personality) becomes weak, the ego becomes anti-social (K. S.
Williams 2012). Juveniles develop delinquent inclinations when their self-control and social
regulation through primary groups is weakened. Deviance and delinquency have been linked
tothe dissolution of social structures (Chris Knoester and Dana L. Haynie, 2005). There may be
a substantial correlation between a young person's psychological state and delinquent
tendencies. In a study of female detainees in Bangladesh, it was discovered that the
offenders of the Female Juvenile Center had a relatively high rate of psychological disorders
(Maruf et al, 2015). These criminals also had a high rate of substance misuse. The social and
psychological elements that contribute to delinquency in India have been extensively
discussed by David Brandt (2006). Under the heading of social factors, it
ResMilitaris,vol.13,n°3,March Spring 2023193has been noticed that the social environment
has a significant impact on juvenile deviant tendencies. Among these, neighbourhood ties
and social organisation can play a significant role in a juvenile's delinquent behaviour. This
is highlighted in He Len Chung and Laurence Steinberg's research (2006). According to the
findings, when neighbourhood links are poor and social organisation components are
ineffective, social control over society members is weakened, leading to delinquent
inclinations. Ineffective parenting and the association of the youth with deviant friends, in
addition to the poor area, all contribute to greater rates of offending.
3.Biological FactorsIndividuals are influenced by their biological/ genetic make-up,
according to biological reasons. They aren't technically enslaved by biological design,
but it does make these people more prone to delinquent impulses. Juveniles'
impulsive and rebellious behaviour is attributed to hormonal changes in their bodies.
Environmental, economic, and ecological factors are also key triggers in the lives of
juveniles. However, it is frequently a mixture of these variables that leads to a condition of
juvenile delinquency.

1.6 Law relating to juvenile crimes The Apprentices Act, 1850, in India, was the first law
dealing with juvenile crimes. It stated that adolescents under the age of 15 who were found to
have committed petty offences would be tied as apprentices. Following that, the Reformatory
Schools Act of 1897 went into force, requiring that children under the age of 15 who
were sentenced to prison be put to a reformatory cell. Our Parliament passed the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986 after independence with the goal of providing care, protection,
development, and rehabilitation to neglected or delinquent youngsters. It was a law that
established a standard structure across the country. A "boy who has not attained the age of 16
years and a girl who has not gained theage of 18 years" was defined as a "juvenile" under
Section 2(a) of the Act.Later, in 2000, Parliament passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act, which raised the age limit for both girls and boys to 18 years. Regardless of
the seriousness of the offence, a minor can only be imprisoned for a maximum of three
years under this statute. In light of Section 17 of the Act, it offers immunity to a child
who is under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged offence from being tried in a criminal
courtor facing any punishment under criminal law. The goal of the new law was to rehabilitate
the youngster and integrate him or her into society. The logic is that, because of his or her
young age and lack of maturity, a kid can still be reformed, and it is the state's job to protect and
reform the child.

1.7 Important Provisions under the Indian Juvenile Justice Act Under section 2 (I) of the
Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, a juvenile in conflict with the law is defined as a minor who is
under the age of 18 (but over the age of 10) on the date of the crime. There is no unanimity on
what constitutes a kid under Indian law, which leads to confusion and conflict over how
children should be treated legally. Another category of youngsters is referred to in section
2 (d) of the same Act: "Children in Need of Care and Protection." These children are those
who are found without a home, a permanent residence, or any other ostensible means of
subsistence.
ResMilitaris,vol.13,n°3,March Spring 2023194They could be beggars, street children, child
workers, orphaned/ abandoned/ penniless children, abused/ trafficked children, children with
physical deformities/ mental illnesses, or victims of conflict and disaster circumstances. The
Indian JJ Act applies to all such children and, at least on paper, safeguards their rights. R.
N. Choudhary (2005) discusses the many laws that exist in India regarding juvenile justice.
S. K. Bhattacharya also talks about India's juvenile justice system (2000). The JJ Act's
preventive approach necessitated the inclusion of the second category of minors. Children who
live in poverty or in tough circumstances are particularly vulnerable to committing crimes.
Any event in their lives can set off the offender switch, and they may become
delinquents. As a result, in keeping with the notion that prevention is better than
treatment, the JJ Act of India has provided provisions for both offenders and those who
are likely to engage in aberrant behaviour to be treated under the Act. Both types of children
are addressed differently by distinct institutions: juvenile criminals are dealt with by the
Juvenile Justice Board, while vulnerable children are dealt with by the Child Welfare
Committee.A metropolitan judge, or judicial magistrate of first class, and two social workers,
at least one of whom should be a woman, make up the Juvenile Justice Board. Every
police station is required to have a Special Juvenile Police Unit under the Act. All of
these individuals should be trained in child psychology or have a high level of
sensitivity while dealing with children.A joint trial of the juvenile offender and adult
criminals cannot be undertaken if the kid is a co-accused with an adult or adults.
Furthermore, India's Juvenile Justice Act restricts the arrest of adolescents and establishes bail
as a right for the offender, regardless of whether the offence is bailable or not.Furthermore,
juvenile criminals' trials are held in an informal setting, with the offender not being able
to be taken to the Juvenile Justice Board handcuffed. Police officers and other government
employees are dressed casually. The identity of the criminal is always kept hidden, and the
name of the offender cannot be mentioned in newspapers or on television. Following the
trial, the offenders are placed in observation or special homes. Children in need of care
and protection are placed in orphanages.All of the Indian government's child-friendly
initiatives demonstrate that the government does not want to imperil the lives of young
criminals, and instead wants to offer them all a chance to change. All of the provisions are in
conformity with current juvenile law.

• Proposed Amendment in Juvenile Justice Act, 2000: Due to widespread public outcry
about the rising number of crimes perpetrated by minors, the government has chosento
offer the proposed revision to the legislation in the current Parliament. The consequences
of this amendment would be far-reaching in our criminal justice system.In brief major
changes are as follows:
• The proposed legislation would be replacing the existing Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act 2000
• It has clearly defined and classified offences as petty, serious and heinous.
• It has been noticed that the increasing number of serious offences being committed by
juveniles in the age group of 16-18 years. Thus, in recognition of the rights of the
victims alongside the rights of juveniles, it is proposed that such heinous offences
should be dealt with in special manner.• Therefore, it has been proposed that if a heinous crime
is committed by a person in the age group of 16 to18 years, the Juvenile Justice Board
will first assess if the said crime was committed by that person as a ‘child’ or as an ‘adult’•
The Juvenile Justice Board will have psychologists and social experts in it which would make
sure that the rights of the juvenile are duly protected if the crime was committed as a child.•
The trial of the case shall proceed on the basis of Board’s assessment report that whether the
concerned juvenile has committed the crime as a child or as anadult.

2. Judicial Trends On Juvenile Delinquency: The Supreme Court and the other High Courts
play an important part in the development of India's juvenile justice system. Lower
courts deal with juvenile delinquent matters at the primary level, but because their decisions
are not binding on other courts, they are unable to influence policy. As a result, the trends
in judicial approach to a juvenile in conflict with the law, as reflected in judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several high courts, are being investigated. Juveniles in
dispute with the law who are produced or brought before the courts/juvenile justice
board have a legislative and constitutional obligation to deal with them. When
deciding cases, the competent authority must conduct a thorough investigation and provide
ample opportunity for juveniles to present their case, not only during the investigation into
the commission of the offence for which he or she is charged, but also at the outset of
the case when the issue of determining his or her age is brought before the court or the
Board concerned.Child delinquency is a big problem in both developing and wealthy countries,
and it is rapidly increasing. Even in small cities and rural regions, the problem is rapidly
spreading, and ifit is not addressed through preventive and remedial measures, it will ruin 'the
child,' the nation's future. To address and resolve the issue, governments have formed numerous
courts and boards to carry out the various laws enacted by legislation. By interpreting
numerous legislative enactments adopted for the benefit of juvenile offenders, the courts
have made significant contributions to the field of juvenile justice.Though the Juvenile Justice
Act of 1986 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000 are
primarily concerned with the juvenile justice system in India, the judiciary has expressed
serious concerns about the proper implementation of beneficial provisions of law relating
to children on several occasions.

2.1 Judicial Trends: Judicial trends set by various courts relating to child delinquency can
be examined under following heads :-

1.Determination of Age of JuvenileThe court's first and most important duty and
responsibility is to assess whether a person is a juvenile or not before convicting them.
The courts have ruled that minors under the age of 12 should not be imprisoned.
In the case of Smt. Prabhati v. Emperor, it was decided that such young children should
be released under the supervision and care of their parents or guardians as much as
feasible. Before sending a person to reformatory school, the court must have clear
evidence of his or her age. It was clarified that a youngster may not be put to a
reformatory school without first receiving an order of institutionalisation, or jail.

2. Jurisdiction of the Board/Court.The question before the Supreme Court in Raghbir's

appeal by special leave was whether a person under the age of 16 who is accused of a crime
under section 302 can benefit from the Haryana Children Act. The facts are undisputed:
the appellant, together with three others, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life
in prison by the Sessions Judge. The High Court ruled against the appeal. Following
that, the appellant sought special leave toappeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The
grant of leave was limited to the question of the Act's applicability in his situation. It is
also undeniable that the appellant was under the age of 16 when he first appeared in front
of the trial court. As a result, he was a 'kid' within the meaning of Cl. (d) of Section 2 of the
Act.The Supreme Court cited an earlier ruling in another instance and decided that a
child's trial under the Act's provisions was not banned. However, it appears that S. 27 of the
Code was not brought to the Court's attention in that case. In light of this, the two-
member bench before which this appeal was heard, including one of us (Baharul Islam, J.),
referred it to a bigger bench in order to avoid potential conflict of decisions. This is
how this appeal ended up in front of this three-member Bench for a hearing. After reviewing
the requirements of Section 27 Cr.P.C. and the Haryana Children Act, 1974, the court
granted the appeal, throwing aside the appellant's conviction and sentence, quashing the entire
trial, and ordering that Raghbir be handled with in line with the Haryana Children Act, 1974.
3.Apprehension and Production of JuvenileBecause of the sensitivity of the subject of
juvenile apprehension and detention, the Juvenile Justice (C & P) Act has established
and imposed unique duties on the police. The Act imposes the following duties on police
officers in general.
1.When a ‘Juvenile in Conflict with the Law' is detained by the police, he is placed under the
supervision of the Special Juvenile Police Unit or a designated Police Officer, who must
immediately report the incident to a member of the Juvenile Justice Board. The juvenile would
be brought before the concerned Court until such a Board is established in Chandigarh.
2.SHOs will make sure that officers assigned to cases involving children are personally present.
3.A juvenile who is arrested and is not released on bond by the officer in charge of the police
station will be held in an observation home until he may appear before a Board or a Court.The
Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station shall notify the Juvenile's parent or guardian as
soon as possible after the Juvenile's arrest and direct him to appear at the board. Officers-in-
Charge of Police Stations must notify the Probation Officer of the arrest so that he can gather
information about the juvenile's antecedents and family history.
ResMilitaris,vol.13,n°3,March Spring 20231973. SuggestionsCurrently, a great number of
people in society are demanding that adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 be
considered as adults in cases where they have been convicted of horrific crimes such as
rape, gang rape, murder, dacoity, and so on. The reason for this is that in several of the
recent events stated above, minors in the 16-18 age group have been proven to be
participating in severe crimes, and they are doing so with full knowledge and
maturity.They are involved in significant crimes, and they do so with full understanding
and maturity.Because of the effect of the Internet and Social Media, children's maturity levels
have not remained the same as they were 10-20 years ago. A child's mental maturity comes
early in today's socio-cultural environment. As a result, in order to have a deterrent effect, such
perpetrators in the age bracket of 16 to 18 should be punished as adults, so that victims can
receive justice as well. Also, according to this viewpoint, it is not only the child's fault
that he or she has committed such heinous crimes, but it is also the responsibility of
society to explain why society has failed to provide a proper and healthy childhood to the
child, and why there were such types of discriminations and deprivations, both social and
economic, that the child was forced to commit crimes; also, why the State failed to
provide care and protection to its children and levied levies; and why the State failed to As
can be seen, there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue of changing or
amending the Juvenile Justice Act.