Cover Letter

Title of the article: Comparative Study of Juvenile Delinquency

Name of the Author: Nirbhay Gupta
Year Studying: 1st Year
Stream of Study: Law
Name of the Institution: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
E-mail Id: [email protected]
Contact No: 8130315108, 9915872338
Postal Address: Room No-315, Patel Hall, Boys Hostel, RGNUL Campus, Bhadson Road,
Sidhuwal, Patiala, Punjab
 Comparative Study of Juvenile Delinquency
Abstract
Author- Nirbhay Gupta
Contemporary World has seen increase in the rate of crime committed by juveniles which is a
very serious problem especially in India as these juveniles are the future of their respective
countries. More and more children are moving towards the pathway of crime to lead their life.
Various factors are responsible for this approach of juveniles. This research looks at all the
aspects of Juvenile Delinquency in the Major Countries and steps taken by these countries to
curb the offences committed by juveniles and further to compare their laws made to deal with
juveniles with respect to India. This research also aims at studying the major differences between
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and that of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which has been recently
passed in the Parliament. The goal of the research is to get the best way to deal with juveniles by
comparative study among the major countries.

Keywords- Juvenile, Delinquency, Comparative, Crime, Approach, Offences

INTRODUCTION
Juvenile Delinquency means participation of minors or young people in illegal activities. Various
Legal systems in the world have adopted specific procedures to deal with juvenile offenders
such as Juvenile Justice Courts, Observation Homes etc. A Juvenile delinquent in India is a
person below the age of 18 and has committed act prohibited under the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and otherwise would have been charged with the crime if they have been adult.
Depending upon the severity of crime and the state of mind of the juvenile while committing
the act, it is possible for people under 18 to be tried as an adult.
Delinquency itself is socially inadequate adjustment on the part of the individual to difficult
situations. The factors which go to make up these difficult situations, together with the mental
and physical conditions which influence an individual's capacity to adjust, constitute the causes
of delinquency. Each juvenile offense is the outcome of a complexity of causes, some of whose
origins date back years before the committal of the offense and others whose origins are more
obviously and immediately connected with the act of delinquency. It has been shown that a
different set of causes is involved in each individual case. It is impossible therefore to state the
group of causes which will invariably result in any particular offense.

Before the establishment of juvenile courts, children under the age of seven were never held
responsible for criminal acts. The law considered them incapable of forming the necessary
criminal intent. Children between the ages of 7 and 14 were generally thought to be incapable
of committing a criminal act, but this belief could be disproved by showing that the youth knew
the act was a crime or would cause harm to another and committed it anyway. Children over
the age of 14 could be charged with a crime and handled in the same manner as an adult. In
most countries, a juvenile charged with a serious crime, such as robbery or murder, can be
transferred to criminal court and tried as an adult. Sometimes prosecutors make this decision,
or some countries that allow transfers require a hearing to consider the age and record of the
juvenile, the type of crime, and the likelihood that the youth can be helped by the juvenile
court. As a result of a get-tough attitude involving juvenile crime, many countries have revised
their juvenile codes to make it easier to transfer youthful offenders to adult court.

Recent years have seen an increase in serious crime by juveniles. This has included more violent
acts, such as murder, which are often related to drugs, gangs, or both. Consequently, there has
been a movement in a number of states to further reduce the age at which juveniles can be
tried as adults. Some people believe all juveniles should be tried as adults if they commit
certain violent crimes.
 JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT, 2015
In India, a person below the age of 18 years is considered as juvenile however it is clearly stated
in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that a child cannot be charged for any crime until he has
attained the age of 7. In India Juvenile Justice Act deals with the juvenile delinquency and it has
been recently amended in the year 2015. The Juvenile Justice Act came into force from 15th
January, 2016. The act was the product of the Delhi gang rape case of 2012 also known as the
‘Nirbhaya’ gang rape case which resulted in a large hue and cry among the citizens and citizens
filled the streets in protest against the gang rape victims.

The Juvenile Justice Bill, 2015 was introduced in Lok Sabha in August, 2014 and was justified on
various grounds. It was argued by the government that the juvenile justice act, 2000 was facing
implementation issues and procedural delays with regards to adoption etc. The data of National
Crime Records Bureau shows a rapid increase in juvenile offences. According to the data, in the
year 2014, a total of 33,526 cases (under IPC) were registered against children below 18 years
of age, as against a total number of 28, 51,563 cases registered in the country during that year.
Also Juvenile in the age group of 16 – 18 years accounted for about 75 per cent of the total
number of crimes against minors in the year 2014. Juveniles continue to constitute 1.2 per cent
of the total cognizable crime rate in the country, a trend that has remained unchanged since
2012.

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 provided for the framework to deal with children who are in
conflict with the law as well as children those are in need of care and protection. The current
Juvenile Justice act, 2015 also has the provisions to deal with both categories of children. It
recommends two main bodies to deal with these children, to be set up in each district: Juvenile
Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs). The new act also provides for
children between 16-18 years to be tried as adults for hideous crime

Under the 2000 Act, any child in conflict with law, regardless of the type of offence committed,
may spend a maximum of three years in institutional care (special home, etc.) The child cannot
be given any penalty higher than three years, nor be tried as an adult and be sent to an adult
jail whereas the act of 2015 treats all children under the age of 18 years in a similar way, except
for one departure. It states that any 16-18 year old who commits a heinous offence may be
tried as an adult. The JJB shall assess the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to
understand consequences of the offence, etc. On the basis of this assessment, a Children’s
Court will determine whether the child is fit to be tried as an adult.
The new act addresses children in need of care and protection. When a child is found to be
orphaned, abandoned or surrendered he is brought before a Child Welfare Committee within
24 hours. A social investigation report is conducted for the child, and the Committee decides to
either send the child to a children’s home or any other facility it deems fit, or to declare the
child to be free for adoption or foster care. The act outlines the eligibility criteria for
prospective parents. It also details procedures for adoption, and introduces a provision for
inter-country adoption, so that prospective parents living outside the country can adopt a child
in India.
Previously, the Guidelines Governing Adoption, 2015 under the 2000 Act, used to regulate
adoptions. Model Foster Care Guidelines have also recently been released by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development.
The new act has a provision which lays down for JJBs to include psychologists and sociologists
which would decide whether a juvenile criminal in the age group of 16-18 can be tried as adult.
The Act has also incorporated various concepts of Hague Convention on Protection of Children
and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption, 1993 which were absent from the
previous act. This act was majorly criticized for introduction of the ‘Judicial Waiver System’
which allows juveniles, under certain circumstances to be tried and punished as adults.
 COMPARITIVE STUDY OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
ACROSS THE WORLD

In New Zealand, law applying to children and young person did not distinguish between
offending and needy children for a long time. Thus, New Zealand did not have any legal
provisions applying solely to young offenders before the Children, Young Persons and their
Families Act (CYPFA) was passed in 1989. Today, this Act is New Zealand’s major statute relating
to juvenile justice, regulating, inter alia, proceedings against young offenders before the Youth
Court and containing various legal consequences for dealing with young persons who have
offended against the law.
The CYPFA was passed to reform the law relating to children and young persons who are in
need of care or protection or who offend against the law. Accordingly, the new legislation set
up some unique objectives and put ‘a comprehensive set of general principles that govern both
state intervention in the lives of children and young people and the management of the youth
justice system’ into statutory form. The Act’s objectives are: to promote the well-being of
children, young persons, their families, whanau and family groups by providing
accessible services and processes that try to address cultural needs and assist families in caring
for their young people; to assist families when the relationship between family members is
disrupted; to assist children and young people in order to prevent harm, ill-treatment, abuse,
neglect or deprivation; to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their wrong- doing; to deal
with young offenders by addressing and acknowledging their needs and enhancing their
development; and to promote cooperation between organizations that provide services for
children, young persons, families and family groups.
The age brackets for criminal responsibility are regulated in the Crimes Act 1961. Under section
21(1) of the Crimes Act, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years, which means that no
person under the age of 10 years may be convicted of an offence. This, however, does not
affect the liability of any other person alleged to be a party to that offence.
The relevant date to determine the age of the young offender is the day on which the offence
in question is said to have been committed. Thus, a child offender is a person who was 10, 11,
12 or 13 years old when he or she committed the offence. However, by virtue of the Crimes Act
1961 and the CYPFA, a child between the ages of 10 and 14 years cannot be prosecuted for any
offence other than murder or manslaughter, and cannot be convicted for murder or
manslaughter unless he or she knew either that the act or omission was morally wrong or that
it was contrary to law. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused knew that the
act or omission was wrong or was contrary to law. Consequently, prosecutions of children
under the age of 14 are very rare. When a child is charged with either murder or manslaughter,
the preliminary hearing of the charge must take place before a Youth Court. In such cases, the
provisions of the CYPFA, with certain exceptions, apply as if that child were a young person.
An important element of New Zealand’s youth justice system is diversionary processes carried
out on various levels. The new system under the CYPFA emphasizes diversion from courts and
custody, and, while holding young person accountable, facilitates the construction of responses
that aim to provide for the rehabilitation and reintegration of young people, support for their
families, and that take into account the needs of victims. Minor and first-time youth offending
can be dealt with by enforcement officers while more severe or recidivist offending has to be
brought before a Youth Court Judge. Evidence suggests that about 44% of New Zealand’s
young offenders are dealt with by police warnings (by either front line or Youth Aid police
officers), about 32% by police Youth Aid diversion, about 8% by direct referral to an Family
Group Conference (FGC), and about 16% by charges in the Youth Court followed by an FGC.

In Germany, as a result of the historical development of the German laws relating to juveniles,
today there is a strict separation between the laws dealing with young offenders on the one
hand, and children and young person being in need of care and protection on the other. Thus,
in Germany there is a distinct Act dealing only with young offenders, the German Juvenile
Justice Act (JJA).
The legal base of the juvenile justice system is the JJA of 4 August 1953 as amended on 11
December 1974 and partially reformed in 1990. Comparable to New Zealand’s legislation
relating to juvenile offenders, the JJA is not a discrete criminal law statute for criminal offences
committed by juveniles. Instead, criminal offences (whether committed by juveniles or adults)
are specifically defined in the other act, whereas the JJA contains the substantive law and the
special procedural provisions for the Jugendgerich and its jurisdiction.
The German youth justice system is in fact a modified adult criminal justice system. There is no
special decision-making forum (like JJBs). Thus, in Germany, the normal site for decision-making
is the courtroom where public prosecutors and judges determine the appropriate response to
offending behavior. In recognition of the principles of the diversion model, the nationwide
expansion of applying diversionary provisions is based on the assumption that diversionary
responses to juvenile offending avoid or reduce stigmatization because the young offender
does not pass through the whole criminal procedure and instead is treated ‘educationally’ very
early. There are some informal actions available which can be applied before the case against
the young person is preferred in court. The broad application of diversionary provisions is
justified by the knowledge (received through self-report research) that the commission of
minor offences during the adolescence of young persons is ‘normal’ and ‘ubiquitous’ and is
generally stopped after growing up. Thus, formal proceedings ending in convictions should be
avoided as often as possible because a formal conviction rather causes damage than help and
can be disproportionate, given that the aim of sentencing in youth justice is individual
prevention including rehabilitation.

Since America has been ruled by England for number of years, the laws in America are highly influenced
by the Common law of England. In United States, slogan “adult crime adult time “is being adopted. In 38
states of US, upper age of juveniles is seventeen years while in other three states it is fifteen years.
There is unanimity in almost all US States on the point of trying juveniles at par with adults on
juvenile attaining the age of fourteen years in certain circumstances barring states like
Vermont, Indiana, South Dakota where a child of even ten years can be tried as adult. As far as
punishment part is concerned there are various forms of penalties that are given to the
juveniles. In heinous crimes even life imprisonment can be granted to child aged twelve years
which is considered to be the maximum punishment. Juveniles who have the potential to try
serious offences are detained in secured and tenable environment and are made to take part in
rehabilitative programme. All this is done to control young juveniles. Additionally rigorous
punishments relating to drugs and gang related offences, stringent treatment such as boot
camps and blended sentence have also been introduced to put them right. As far as the
jurisdiction part is concerned if a child usually 13 or 15 commits a grave and grim crime then
their case is automatically shifted to adult court. Jurisdiction of juvenile courts is automatically
waived in such cases.

CONTRAST BETWEEN INDIA, UNITED KINGDOM and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
India

 In India the act provides following powers to Juvenile justice Board.

 Observation homes(Section 8)
 Set up for the temporary reception of any juvenile in conflict with law during the pendency
of any inquiry regarding them under this Act.
 They are to be established by the State Govt.
 Special homes (Section9)
 To be established by the state Govt. to provide for the management of special homes,
including the standards and various types of services to be provided by them which are
necessary for re-socialization of a juvenile.
 Children’s homes (Section 34 )
 The State Government may establish and maintain itself or in association with the voluntary
organizations, children’s homes, in every district , for the reception of child in need of care
 and protection during the pendency of any inquiry and subsequently for their care,
treatment, education, training, development and rehabilitation.
 Shelter homes (Section37)
 The State Government may recognize, reputed and capable voluntary organizations and
provide them assistance to set up and administer as many shelter homes for juveniles or
children as may be required.
 Adoption (Section 41)
 Adoption shall be resorted to for the rehabilitation of the children who are orphan,
abandoned or surrendered through such mechanism as may be prescribed.
 Foster care (Section42)
 In foster care, the child may be placed in another family for a short or extended period of
time, depending upon the circumstances where the child’s own parent usually visit regularly
and eventually after the rehabilitation, where the children may return to their own homes.

United States and United Kingdom

Juvenile courts have a wide range of sentencing options that they can impose on juveniles
or youth offenders.
 Incarcerating Juvenile Delinquents
 After a child is held delinquent a JJ Court may order incarceration as a penalty. But this
incarceration is different from those used in adult criminal justice system. Some common
ways that the judges can order confinement for a juvenile who has been found delinquent:
 Home confinement: The judge can order the minor to remain at home, with exceptions
(attend school, work, counseling, and so on).
 Placement with someone other than a parent or guardian: The judge can require that the
minor live with a relative or in a group or.
 Juvenile hall/juvenile detention facility: The judge can send the minor to a juvenile detention
facility. These facilities are designed for short-term stays.
 Secured juvenile facilities: These facilities are designed for longer term stays. Juveniles can
be sent to secured facilities for months or years.
 Juvenile and adult jail: In some jurisdictions, judges can send delinquent juveniles to a
juvenile facility, and then order transfer to an adult facility once the juvenile reaches the age
of majority.
 Non-Incarceration Options for Juveniles
 Verbal warning: The sentence for the juvenile can be as simple as a verbal reprimand.
 Fine: The minor may be required to pay a fine to the government or pay compensation to the
victim.
 Counseling: Often, judges require juveniles to attend counseling as part of a disposition
order.
 Community service: Juveniles may be ordered to work a certain number of hours in service
to the local community.
 Electronic monitoring: Juveniles may be required to wear a wrist or ankle bracelet that
verifies their location at all times.
 Probation
 Probation is a program of supervision in which the minor’s freedom is limited and activities
restricted.
 Probation is the most common disposition in juvenile cases that receive a juvenile court
sanction. In an average year, about half of all minors judged to be delinquent receive
probation as the most restrictive sentence.

CONCLUSION
Every child has a right to joyful, elated and jubilant childhood, the right to grow in a harmless
and nurturing environment, the right to be free from the intricacies and convolutions of life etc.
but there are some unlucky and doomed children who are deprived of these things and they
grow out to be children not wanted for or to term it the other way juvenile delinquents. To deal
with these juvenile offenders many legislations are made across the world. In India, The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is far from being a perfect
legislation to protect and promote the rights of children. The mistakes in the earlier law have
been replicated in the present enactment. It is still left to the discretion of the respective State
governments to set up the mechanism mentioned under the Act, despite a demand that the full
implementation of the Act be made mandatory. The juvenile justice system is presently in
limbo. Let us hope that respective State governments fill the lacunae by preparing
comprehensive rules in consultation with child rights experts and non-governmental
organizations. The Central government is empowered under Section 70 to remove, within two
years of the Act having come into force, any difficulty that hampers its effective
implementation. Let us put the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act to test,
and make most of this provision to streamline its efficiency, keeping children centre-stage. The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down the primary law for not
only the care and protection of the children but also for the adjudication and disposition of
matters relating to children in conflict with law. The Juvenile Justice System is limited in its
application to the children committing offences and others in need of care and protection. The
term youth justice encompasses all aspects of the complex system involving the treatment of
children and young people who commit offences. The parallel strands of the law relating to
police investigation, diversion from prosecution, the pre-trial; process, bail, remands and the
use of secure accommodation, the youth court, the youth offending teams, trials, sentences
and post- sentence supervision all come under the youth justice umbrella.
 REFERENCES
 Franklin, Zimering. American Juvenile Justice. 1st. Chicago: Oxford University Press, 2005.
23. Print.
 Zimering E. Franklin, American Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, 2005)
 Ian Blakeman, ‘The Youth Justice System of England and Wales’, 139TH INTERNATIONAL
TRAINING COURSE VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS accessed on 24 Mar 2014
<http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No78/No78_13VE_Blakeman.pdf> accessed
on 24 Mar 2015
 Zimering E. Franklin, American Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, 2005)
 http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/juvenile-court-sentencing-options-
32225.html
 Ibid
 Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Deliquency : A Comprehensive Framework, Howell c.
James ( 2nd edn, Sage, Lon Angeles)
 Rajya Sabha passes Juvenile Justice Bill; Jyoti's parents welcome development. The
Indian Express. 22 December 2015. Retrieved 22 December 2015.
 SC agrees to examine plea to base juvenile culpability on mental age. The Times of India.
1 August 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
 SC Asks Swamy To Inform JJB To Defer Verdict On Juvenile. Tehelka. 31 July 2013.
Retrieved 10 May 2015.
 Delhi gang rape: Teenager found guilty. BBC News. 31 August 2015. Retrieved10
May 2013.
 Teen sentenced in rape, death of Indian medical student. CNN. 2 September 2014.
Retrieved 10 May 2015.
 Juveniles who commit rape should be tried as adults: Maneka Gandhi. IBNLive. 14 July
2014. Retrieved 10 May 2015.