
India passes tough new law for serious juvenile crimes - chdir
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35161193
======
kbart
Actually, I agree with such changes. It's not like India is now going to hang
children for petty crimes, the change will only affect teens of 16-18 years
old that committed really serious crimes (i.e. murder, rape). Seriously, do
you think 3 years of imprisonment for brutal murder and gang rape(0) is
adequate? In my point of view, a person capable of such actions (despite their
age) is worth the maximum sentence.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape)

~~~
mootothemax
>In my point of view, a person capable of such actions (despite their age) is
worth the maximum sentence.

So what _is_ your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10,
or 7, or 5?

The only thing we _can_ say with any certainty is that the Victorians tried
and tested the hang-em-high method of crime reduction, with less than stellar
results to show for it.

~~~
kbart
_" So what is your age limit?"_

Why should there be an age limit? If a person is capable of _consciously_ plan
a crime and execute it, he/she should be able to take a responsibility and
punishment for it. What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case
by case basis, not setting some hard limit just because a perpetrator is below
a certain age. A person doesn't become somehow magically different at midnight
he turns 18. Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old
running around and killing people, so the bar sets itself naturally (I'd guess
proposed 16yo is pretty accurate for the serious crimes).

~~~
mootothemax
>What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis

OK, so it's bad bad phrasing on my part.

How would _you personally_ decide "if a person is capable of consciously plan
a crime and execut[ing] it?"

> Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around
> and killing people

Yeah, that was hypoerbole on my part. It's not unknown for 10-year-olds to
commit hideous crimes, though.

~~~
kbart
I don't decide _personally_ , it's not in my authority. Even if it would,
again, it depends on a certain case. There are specialists in court -- medics,
psychologist etc. that decide if a tried person is sane, understands his
actions, committed a crime consciously and is capable of prison sentence or
other means better be taken.

------
adityab
Many people wanted the juvenile to be retried retroactively as an adult,
"because this case is special".

India should:

1\. Not pass knee-jerk laws, it takes a long time to undo the damage.

2\. Do away with the death penalty.

Mobs of 'concerned citizens' always turn into sadistic assholes when they know
their anger is righteous. But once the punishment of death is off the table,
there would be one less way to cause serious damage.

You should see how the discourse in India has become, with good people
suggesting more and more creative ways of torturing the rapists;
disembowelment, chemical castration, and reversed re-enactment of the original
rape have all been suggested.

A national exercise in revenge is sickening. Good, kind people braying for
blood is sickening.

~~~
RavKtm
This is no knee jerk reaction, it was tabled a good two years ago, the Lok
Sabha had already passed the bill and today the Rajya Sabha. Though it might
appear as a brash move to lower the age, the clause of being under age has
been misused by organized crime as the least punishment was applicable.

Creative suggestions and covering those in detail is a media propaganda to
keep the minutes running on their 24hr news channels.

~~~
eager_noob
If the real problem is misuse of clause of being underage by organized
criminals, then laws against organized crime and even more importantly it
seems in India's case the infrastructure to prosecute the guilty should be
strengthened. Toughening the laws for under aged does not seem the appropriate
response in that case.

------
jsudhams
I understand where parents of victim are coming from adn most probably take
the same stance of more harsh paunishment for these crimes. But entirely
reducing the age for juvenile some how does not sound right. The reasons are
1\. While the kids are more clever now a days I see not much done to to
improve morality in education -- Not even as much as physical education
periods 2\. Internet in hand means lots of wrong things show as right, i
personally know adults who beleive the news or forwarded news like items in
WhatsApp is right (99% of them are wrong) and actual news website/new watching
is redcuing close to zero with youngsters 3\. No vent out for youngsters i.e.
not enough parks, parents pushing youngsters to money - no matter what. i.e.
If you tell your kid it is ok to cheat govt or give bribe now-a-days and say
that eve teasing is bad then they take either both bad (if they are
intelligent) or both ok. 4\. There is a serious need for parent to know and
teach kids about internet - about 60% parents know kids can watch nasty stuff
on internet but they just dont know how bad it is and how to educate kid on
what is right and what is wrong, i would even encourage indian telecom
providers take ownership of teaching this to parents and kids

------
prateek_mir
The text on the placard that the girl is holding in the first picture of the
article is exactly why more debate was needed on the issue.

------
FussyZeus
All was pretty straightforward until I got to acid attacks. Acid attacks? I'm
assuming like, flinging it into a victim's face or something? That's just
weird.

Edit: Not implying that rape or murder are "normal" but I would say they're
more common...

~~~
mkaziz
It's pretty common in that part of the world, unfortunately.

------
_____s
A very poor precedent has been set, unfortunately.

------
Lawtonfogle
Cool. Adult responsibilities with child rights.

Older teens need to just be treated as adults with respect to both.

