By Sumitra Badrinathan The outrage following the Nirbhaya rape case and the demand for holding youth offenders more accountable has finally translated itself into law: The NDA Cabinet approved amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, involving the transfer of juveniles between the ages of 16 & 18 to adult criminal courts. If these amendments are passed, a minor between 16-18 years can be tried in adult court and sent to adult jail for monstrous crimes such as rapes and murders. Given the fact that the last few years have seen a sharp rise in the number of heinous crimes committed by juveniles in the country, this may seem like a welcome move by the government. However, there are several reasons that strongly contest this step.The universal age at which one attains adulthood is set at 18 years, defined globally by the right to vote. Suffrage has long been tied to adulthood, and the underlying implication is that before 18 years of age, one is not mentally capable enough of electing one’s own representatives in government. However, adulthood does not always bring the privilege of being able to consume alcohol: the legal age for drinking in in countries like the United States and also in some states in India is 21; in Maharashtra 25. Why? Because we assume teenagers responsible for a lot of drunk driving accidents. So if after one has been named an adult, one still doesn’t have the maturity to drink moderately, how can one at 16 be tried for crimes just as an adult is?When the age of consent in India has itself been raised to 18, it seems hypocritical to say that sex isn’t legal before 18 because juveniles are not mature enough, but rapes committed before 18 must be tried in adult courts. If the rationale behind seeking to try juvenile criminals as adults is that they are well aware of the crimes they commit and of the decisions they make, it would not be altogether absurd to demand that the legal age for drinking, driving, voting, getting married and having sexual relations be also reduced to 16 years.We classify perpetrators as juveniles and adults for a reason: a juvenile does not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision making, experience or wisdom that an adult presumably has. In a US Supreme Court decision in 2005 which abolished the juvenile death penalty, the American Psychological Association described adolescents as “developmentally immature”. Some may not even appreciate the consequences of their behavior, and ignoring this thought could be said to be in gross violation of the driving basis for punishment: reformation. When you treat a juvenile like an adult, the essential message being sent out is that the juvenile does not have a chance, that society has given up on him, that he cannot be salvaged. This, in my opinion, could lead to the very purpose of criminal punishment falling flat.According to Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, "Suppose a man is 17 years and 9 months old and he commits a heinous crime of rape and murder, so he gets a benefit of the acts, that doesn't seem quite rational”. We need to understand that there will always be cutoffs, and these cutoffs must not be questioned on the basis of how closely someone missed them. If tomorrow a 14 year old commits a heinous crime of rape and murder, will the Act further be amended? That does not seem quite rational. There is a thin line between child and adult, and that line must be firmly drawn.What is unfortunate is that the proposal for this amendment comes out of outrage, anger and social pressure on politicians, without evidence to back up the changes. Holding every juvenile perpetrator to the same standards as an adult - without consideration of his / her developmental level - is a ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction, much like punishing a two-year-old for not knowing how to tie his shoe. It surprises me how we are collectively willing to throw away a juvenile as non-redeemable. Literature tells us that the younger a person is, the more likely he will get reformed. While that does nothing to minimize the horror of a heinous crime, it does speak of the possibility of rehabilitation. It is up to us, as a community, to decide what it is that we are willing to get back in the long run. Sumitra Badrinathan is a Masters student in International Relations at the University of Chicago. She is also a graduate in Psychology from St. Xavier's College, Mumbai. A keen observer of the political scenario in India, when she isn't reading, she is always posting her opinion on social media on matters of public debate. You can write to her at sumitra93@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @KhariBiskut Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this articles are the personal opinions of the author. The News Minute is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability or validity of any information in this article. The information, facts or opinions appearing in this article do not reflect the views of The News Minute and The News Minute does not assume any liability on the same.