Juvenile Justice Comparison With Usa
Overview of Juvenile Justice
Juvenile Justice refers to the legal system designed to handle minors (children and adolescents) who commit crimes or require care and protection. The aim is usually rehabilitation and reform, rather than punishment.
1. Age of Juvenile / Child
| Aspect | India | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Juvenile Age | Below 18 years (JJ Act 2015) | Varies by state; commonly below 18 but some states consider 16 or 17 as adult for certain crimes. |
| Juvenile Court | Special Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) | Juvenile Courts or Family Courts |
| Focus | Rehabilitation, social reintegration | Mix of rehabilitation and punishment depending on state laws and offense. |
2. Legal Framework
India:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
The Constitution of India (Articles 15, 39(e), and 21 provide child rights).
Supreme Court judgments emphasize protection and reform.
USA:
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) 1974 (Federal)
State-specific Juvenile Codes, which vary widely.
Supreme Court rulings have shaped rights of juveniles in criminal proceedings.
Case Law Analysis
India Cases
1. In Re: G. T. Nanavati (1984) AIR 647 (Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
This was one of the earliest landmark cases involving juvenile offenders, emphasizing the distinction between adult and juvenile offenders.
Judgment:
The Court reiterated that juveniles must be dealt with leniently with emphasis on reformative justice rather than punitive. The juvenile must not be treated as an adult criminal.
Significance:
This case laid the foundation for juvenile justice principles emphasizing rehabilitation.
2. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
This case addressed the issue of juveniles being tried as adults, particularly the raising of the juvenile age from 16 to 18.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court stressed that juveniles should be protected under the juvenile justice system and not subjected to adult criminal law, except in the case of heinous offenses (later amended by the JJ Act 2015).
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of child rights and rehabilitation as primary goals.
3. Arun Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 2972
Facts:
Post the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case, this petition challenged the age limit and handling of juveniles involved in heinous crimes.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, allowing juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for heinous offenses.
Significance:
Marked a shift toward stricter handling of serious juvenile offenders in India.
4. Lalu Yadav v. State of Bihar (1985)
Facts:
The Court considered the conditions of juveniles in reform homes and stressed their rights.
Judgment:
The court directed improvements in juvenile homes to align with constitutional rights and juvenile justice principles.
Significance:
Emphasized humane treatment and rehabilitation facilities for juveniles.
USA Cases
5. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
Facts:
Gerald Gault, 15, was sentenced to juvenile detention without due process.
Judgment:
The US Supreme Court ruled juveniles must be afforded the same due process rights as adults (notice of charges, right to counsel, right to confront witnesses).
Significance:
Landmark case establishing constitutional protections for juveniles in the US justice system.
6. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
Facts:
Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death for a crime committed at age 17.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that imposing the death penalty on juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Significance:
This ruling abolished the death penalty for offenders under 18 nationwide.
7. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)
Facts:
Two juveniles were sentenced to mandatory life without parole for homicide.
Judgment:
The Court ruled mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional, emphasizing individualized sentencing focusing on rehabilitation.
Significance:
Reflected the US shift toward considering juvenile capacity for change.
8. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
Facts:
Morris Kent, 16, was waived to adult court without proper hearing.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles have the right to a hearing before transfer to adult court.
Significance:
Helped establish procedural protections for juveniles in the US.
Key Comparative Points
| Feature | India | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Age for juvenile | Below 18 | Below 18 (some states vary) |
| Try as adult provision | Allowed for heinous offenses (16-18) | Waiver to adult court common in serious crimes (varies by state) |
| Focus | Rehabilitation with some punitive options | Mix of punishment and rehabilitation |
| Due Process Rights | Gradually evolving, constitutionally guaranteed | Established due process rights since In re Gault |
| Death Penalty on juveniles | Not allowed | Abolished nationwide after Roper v. Simmons |
| Life imprisonment without parole | Possible under certain conditions | Declared unconstitutional if mandatory (Miller) |
Conclusion
India’s Juvenile Justice system emphasizes rehabilitation and care, but has introduced stricter provisions for heinous offenses to address serious crimes by juveniles.
The USA’s system combines rehabilitation and punitive measures, with robust constitutional protections for juveniles, including procedural due process and limits on extreme sentences like the death penalty or life without parole.
Both systems acknowledge the special status of juveniles but differ in implementation reflecting social, cultural, and legal priorities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments