“He was a few months short of 18 at the time of the crime, so he is technically a juvenile. However, the juvenile court found the youngest accused guilty of rape and murder, and sentenced to three years at a reform centre.” – news. Courts have to uphold the letter of the law and this juvenile court has done just that – based their verdict on technicalities. I fail to understand how the same person could have perhaps been given a life term had he committed the same crime a few months later – at 18. A juvenile, it is argued is not completely aware of the ramifications of his actions. Does this magic figure of 18, the age of enlightenment? And in the few intervening months how does a juvenile delinquent metamorphose into a criminal? The courts have to uphold the letter of the law, but they also may interpret the law in the context of the crime in order to deliver justice...and in this case justice has not been delivered.
Posted on: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:52:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015