1

DECLARATION OF RESEARCHER

I hereby declare that the project work

entitled“LAW AND ADMINISTRATION OF
SUPREME COURT”submitted to the INDORE
INSTITUTE OF LAW, is a record of an original
work done by me under the guidance of
,Faculty Member of INDORE INSTITUTE OF
LAW,INDORE, and this project work has
not performed the basis for the award of any
Degree or diploma/ associateship/fellowship and
similar project.

2
3
 TABLE OF CONTENT
 INTRODUCTION

 WHO IS JUVENILE
 JUVINILE CRIME
 HISTORY OF JUVENILE LEGISLATURE IN
INDIA
 JUVENILE DELIQUECIES IN US
 CAUSES
 TYPE
 APPLICATION THEORIES
 SOCIAL CONTROL
 PREVENTION
 SCOPE
 CHANGES NATURE OF JUVELINE
 SERIOUS AND VIOLENT OFFENDER
 JUVELINE GANG AND CRIME
 Conclusion
 Bibliography

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of

gratitude to my TEACHER well as our HEAD
OF DEPARTMENT miss Manpreet kaur ma’m
who gave me the golden opportunity to do
this wonderful project on the topic LAW AND
ADMINISTRATION OF SUPREME COURT, which
also helped me in doing a lot of Research
and i came to know about so many new
things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly i would also like to thank
my parents and friends who helped me a lot
in finalizing this project within the limited
time fram

5
 INTRODUCTION
Juvenile delinquency, also known as "juvenile offending", is
participation in illegal behavior by minors (juveniles, i.e. individuals
younger than the statutory age of majority).[1] Most legal systems
prescribe specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile
detention centers, and courts. A juvenile delinquent in the United States
is a person who is typically under the age of 17 and commits an act that
otherwise would have been charged as a crime if they were an adult.
Depending on the type and severity of the offense committed, it is
possible for persons under 18 to be charged and tried as adults.

In recent years a higher proportion of youth have experienced arrests by

their early 20s than in the past, although some scholars have concluded
this may reflect more aggressive criminal justice and zero-tolerance
policies rather than changes in youth behavior.[2] Juvenile crimes can
range from status offenses (such as underage smoking), to property
crimes and violent crimes. Youth violence rates in the United States
have dropped to approximately 12% of peak rates in 1993 according to
official US government statistics, suggesting that most juvenile
offending is non-violent.[3] However, juvenile offending can be
considered normative adolescent behavior.[4] This is because most teens
tend to offend by committing non-violent crimes, only once or a few
times, and only during adolescence. Repeated and/or violent offending is
likely to lead to later and more violent offenses. When this happens, the
offender often displayed antisocial behavior even before reaching
adolescence.[5]1

6
1Definition
1

: conduct by a juvenile characterized by antisocial behavior that is beyond

parental control and therefore subject to legal action

: a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or

life imprisonment

Who is the Juvenile?

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.3

Today, all states set age limits that determine whether a person accused of a crime
is treated as an adult or as a juvenile. In most states, young people are considered
juveniles until age 18. However, some states set the limit at 16 and 17.

In most states, 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 states 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 states 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 congress and in a number of states to

7
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 Crime, in law, term denoting various offenses committed by children or

youths under the age of 18. Such acts are sometimes referred to as juvenile
delinquency. Children�s offenses typically include delinquent acts, which would
be considered crimes if committed by adults, and status offenses, which are less
serious misbehavior such as truancy and parental disobedience. Both are within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court; more serious offenses committed by minors may
be tried in criminal court and be subject to prison sentences.

Under certain circumstances, youthful offenders can be tried either as juveniles or

as adults. But even in these situations, their treatment is different from that of
adults, for example, a juvenile who is arrested for an �adult� offense can be
adjudicated in either juvenile court or adult court; if convicted, he or she can be
placed with either other juvenile or adults. In contrast, an adult charged with the
same offense would be tried in an adult court; if convicted, he or she would be
incarcerated by the state and would be housed with adults.

Explaining crime and delinquency is a complex task. A multitude of factors exist

that contribute to the understanding of what leads someone to engage in delinquent
behavior. While biological and psychological factors hold their own merit when
explaining crime and delinquency, perhaps social factors can best explain juvenile
delinquency. Juvenile delinquency is a massive and growing individual while
others view delinquency as a macra level function of society.4

Many of the theories that will be presented will be applicable to at least some
instances of crime and delinquency in society. Crime is such a diverse topic, that
the explanation of this social problem is just as diverse. This perspective sees
delinquency as a function of the surroundings or environment that a juvenile lives
in. The saying, �society made me do it� could help to better understand this
perspective.

The public appears much more aware of juvenile crime today than in the past; this
is due in part to more thorough reporting techniques and greater emphasis on
publicizing delinquent acts in the media. Official U.S. crime reports in the
1980�s, showed that about one-fifth of all persons arrested for crimes are under
18 years of age. In the 1970�s, juvenile arrests increased in almost every serious
crime category, and female juvenile crime more than doubled. During the most
recent five year period studied, juvenile arrests decreased slightly each year.

8
Unofficial report, however, suggest that a higher percentage of juveniles are
involved in minor criminal behavior; grossly underreported common offenses
include vandalism, shoplifting, underage drinking, and using marijuana.

As students work through this unit, they will continually make and judge decisions,
and they will analyze decision making by government officials and those seeking
to influence government.

Responsible decision making involves careful assessment of alternative and their

consequences in light of values and goals. Responsible decision makers consider
the effects of their choices on themselves and various others. They will judge the
fairness of their choices in terms of both individual and group goals. A responsible
citizen might ask; 1) How will my decision affect me? 2) How will my decision
affect various others? The responsible citizen tries to make decisions that balance
the needs of the individual and of society.

This unit will conclude with actual written case studies featuring current topics,
issues, and events. Each case is written to develop one or more decision-making
skills can help them achieve goals they value are likely to strive to acquire these
competencies.

Objectives:

1). Help students acquire knowledge and skills needed to carry out their
responsibilities and rights.

2). Help students increase their thinking skills and decision making process.

3). Help students understand causes of juvenile crime.

4). Help students understand the juvenile system.

5). Help students use skills in finding, comprehending, organizing, communicating

information, and ideas.

6). Apply questions to decision-making situations.

7). Identify the role of the courts and the juvenile.

9
8). Increasing student vocabulary.

9). Identify the role of the Juvenile Court.

The juvenile justice system has evolved over the years based on the premise that
juveniles are different from adults and juveniles who commit criminal acts
generally should be treated differently from adults. Separate courts, detention
facilities, rules, procedures, and laws were created for juveniles with the intent to
protect their welfare and rehabilitate them, while protecting public safety.

The root causes of crime are many and diverse. Any hope of addressing those
causes successfully requires multi-faceted strategies, bits and pieces of which can
be implemented by neighborhoods, communities and various levels of government.
There is no silver bulletno simple, expedient answer that can be imposed from
above. Any solution to juvenile crime must involve all sectors of society:
individuals, families, schools, churches, community groups, governments and
businesses. While the scope of effort involved should be as broad as all of society.

Each state should have particular �ownership� of the juvenile crime problems.
The inclination toward crime often arises from factors at home; the impact of crime
is felt in neighborhoods; the arrests, prosecutions and, in most cases, dispositions
are city and county operations. Only 2 percent of juveniles arrested eventually are
placed in state institutions. While the state is a bit player in the day-to-day staging
of the juvenile justice system, it has the ability and responsibility to carve out a
powerful role as a policy leader and facilitator for local solutions.

Prevention works better and is cheaper than treatment. The sobering reality is that
improving to the optimum extent how juvenile criminals are treated once they are
apprehended will only reduce recidivism by at most 10 percent. While keeping 10
percent from continually recycling through the juvenile justice systemand
ultimately, the adult systemwould free significant resources, the fact is that
prevention and early intervention hold far more promise than good rehabilitation
programs for actually reducing crime. Children are much harder to �fix� once
they have become criminals than they are when they first show signs of deviant or
anti-social behavior.5

Personal accountability for actions and decisions is the cornerstone of a civilized

society. Children should be taughtboth at home and in schoolsinformed decision-
making processes. And they should learn that, in theory and in practice, there are

10
swift consequences for poor decisions and both tangible and intangible rewards for
good decisions. To reinforce these lessons, all of the actors within the juvenile
justice system, from the policeman on the beat to the judge in juvenile court, must
strive to make the system work more effectively in providing consequences at all
levels of criminal severity.

The juvenile justice system is a complex web of people and agencies that processes
about a quarter of a million youths annually at a cost exceeding $1 billion. To
understand the system requires a baseline knowledge of the statistical trends during
the past decade that have shaped the system�s ability to function and the roles
played by the various components of the system.

Academic experts have long recognized that crime is a young man�s game. The
typical criminal is a male who begins his career at 14 or 15, continues thorough his
mid-20s and then tapers off into retirement. Three statistics demonstrate the
disproportionate impact of those under the age of 18 on criminal activity; while
comprising roughly one-sixth of the nation�s population, they make up a full one-
quarter of all people arrested and account for nearly one-third of the arrests for the
seven crimes in the uniform crime index(homicide, forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, vehicle theft and larceny).

Statistics show that somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of all boys growing up
in an urbanized area in the United States will be arrested before their 18th
birthday�although juveniles account for only a small proportion of the total
population, older juveniles have the highest arrest rates of any age group.
Furthermore, studies of criminal careers have demonstrated that one of the best
predictors of sustained and serious adult criminality is the age of initiation and
seriousness of the delinquent career.6

Risk factorsResearch shows a small number of juveniles commit crime.

Furthermore, of those juveniles who do commit one or two offenses. For these
individuals, the experience of the juvenile justice systembeing arrested by a law
enforcement officer, facing their parents, having to spend a night in juvenile hall,
interacting with a probation officer or a judgeis enough to keep them from
offending again.

Failure in schoolthis factor manifests itself at an early age. Failure at school

1dropping out of school. This is an important factor for predicting future criminal
behavior. Leaving school early reduces the chance that juveniles will develop the

11
�social� skills that are gained in school, such as learning to meet deadlines,
following instructions, and being able to deal constructively with their peers.

Social Factors -- Changes in the American social structure may indirectly affect
juvenile crime rates. For example, changes in the economy that lead to fewer job
opportunities for youth and rising unemployment in general. This factor includes a
history of criminal activity in the family. It also includes juveniles who have been
subject to sexual or physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment. It is also manifested
by a lack of parental control over the child.

Families have also experienced changes with the last 25 years. More families
consist of one-parent households or two working parents; consequently, children
are likely to have less supervision at home that was common in the traditional
family structure. This lack of parental supervision is thought to be an influence on
juvenile crime rates. Other identifiable causes of delinquent acts include frustration
or failure in school, the increased availability of drugs and alcohol, and the
growing incidence of child abuse and child neglect. All these conditions tend to
increase the probability of a child committing a criminal act, although a direct
causal relationship has not yet been established.

Families are important to consider when trying to explain juvenile delinquency.

The family unit is crucial to a child�s development and healthy upbringing, in
addition, much of what a child learns is through their family or guardians. A
criminal parent can teach their child adverse lessons about life when their child
views or witnesses their parent�s delinquent behavior.

Peer can also teach an adolescent or child criminal behavior just as the family
member can. Family members and peers can also cause delinquent patterns of
behavior by labeling their child as delinquent. This is somewhat of the �if the
shoe fits, wear it� saying. If a child feels as though they are viewed as delinquent,
then they will act as such and find a sense of self-esteem by doing so.

Treatment of Offenders � The juvenile justice system tries to treat and rehabilitate
youngsters who become involved in delinquency. The methods can be categorized
as community treatment, and institutionalization.

In most instances community treatment involves placing the child on probation.

When the child is not believed to be harmful to others, he or she is placed under
the supervision of an officer of the juvenile court and must abide by the specific
rules that are worked out between the officer and the child. In some instances

12
community treatment also takes the form of restitution, in which the child
reimburses the victim either through direct payment or through some form of work
or public service.

Each activity will challenge students to use information, ideas, and skills. These
application exercises will allow students to move from lower to higher cognitive
levels. Students will not only read about making decisions, they will practice
making and judging decisions. They will use skills in finding, comprehending,
organizing, evaluating, and communicating information and ideas. Through regular
application of these skills, students may demonstrate competence.

What is Juvenile Crime?

In its simplest definition, �crime� is any specific act prohibited by law for which
society has provided a formally sanctioned punishment. This also can include the
failure of a person to perform an act specifically required by law.

Types of offenses�crimes, whether committed by adults or juveniles, are

classified by the seriousness of the offenses as follows: a felony is the most serious
offense, punishable by a sentence to a state institution (youth authority facility or
adult prison). Felonies generally include violent crimes, sex offenses, and many
types of drugs and property violations.

A misdemeanor is a less serious offense for which the offender may be sentenced
to probation, county detention (in a juvenile facility or jail), a fine, or some
combination of the three. Misdemeanors generally include crimes such as assault
and battery, petty theft, and public drunkenness. A fraction is the least serious
offense and generally is punishable by a fine. Many motor vehicle violations are
considered infraction. Juveniles, like adults, can be charge with a felony, a
misdemeanor, or an infraction. However, as we will discuss later, juveniles can
also be charged with offenses that are unique to youth.

13
History of juvenile justice legislation in India
The first legislation on juvenile justice in India came in 1850 with the Apprentice
Act which required that children between the ages of 10-18 convicted in courts to
be provided vocational training as part of their rehabilitation process. This act was
transplanted by the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, the Indian Jail Committee and
later the Children Act of 1960. The Juvenile Justice Bill was first introduced in the
Lok Sabha on 22 August 1986. This Act was further amended in 2006 and 2011
and is now known as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. The
State of Jammu and Kashmir has repealed its existing juvenile law of 1997 and has
enacted the Jammu & Kashmir (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2013. This
legislation is very similar to India's national juvenile law except that it does not
contain any provision on adoption.

ection 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of
2000) as amended by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Amendment Act, 2006 (33 of 2006)., states that: “Prohibition of publication of
name, etc., of juvenile or child in need of care and protection involved in any
proceeding under the Act-(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or
visual media of any inquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in
need of care and protection under this Act shall disclose the name, address or
school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the
juvenile or child shall nor shall any picture of any such juvenile or child shall be
published: Provided that for any reason to be recorded in writing, the authority
holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is
in the interest of the juvenile or the child. (2) Any person who contravenes the
provisions of sub-section (1), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to
twenty-five thousand rupees”.

14
Juvenile delinquency in the United States
This page is primarily concerned with juvenile delinquency in the United States.
For information on juvenile delinquency in general, see juvenile delinquency. In
addition, although the term juvenile delinquency often refers to juvenile as both the
victims and the aggressors, this page only refers to juveniles as the actual
delinquents. The information and statistics for juveniles as victims rather than
offenders is much different. For information about juveniles as the victims of
violent attacks, see trafficking of children, child abuse, child sexual abuse, or
prostitution of children.

Causes
There are many factors that cause juvenile delinquency. Sometimes children want
to test their parents' limits, or society's limits.[2] Some people believe that imposing
strict laws such as curfews will cause a drop in juvenile delinquency rates, but
sometimes imposing strict rules merely give the children more of an incentive to
break them. However, sometimes juvenile crimes do in fact occur due to the exact
opposite reason, that is, a lack of rules and supervision.[3] One example of this is
that children many times commit crimes after school and while their parents are at
work or preoccupied.[3] Statistics that are mentioned below explain the peak hours
of juvenile crime rates and conceptualize this very cause. Additionally, mental
illness and substance abuse are large contributing factors.[2] 15-20% of juveniles
convicted of crimes have serious mental illnesses, and the percentages increase to
30-90% of convicted juveniles when the scope of mental illnesses considered
widens.[2] Also, many people believe that a child's environment and family are
greatly related to their juvenile delinquency record.[2] For example, the dynamics
of a family can affect a child’s well being and delinquency rate. Crime rates vary
due to the living situations of children; examples of this could be a child whose
parents are together, divorced, or a child with only one parents, particularly a teen
mom.[4] This is largely due to the fact that living arrangements are directly related
to increases and decreases of poverty levels.[4] Poverty level is another factor that is
related to the chances a child has of becoming a juvenile delinquent.[4] Statistics on
living arrangements, poverty level and other influential factors can be found in a
later section. Others believe that the environment and external factors are not at
play when it comes to crime; they suggest that criminals are faced with rational
choice decisions in which they chose to follow the irrational path.[5] Finally,

15
another cause could be the relationships a child develops in school or outside of
school. A positive or negative friendship can have a great influence on the chances
of children becoming delinquents.[3] Peer pressure is also at play.[3] Relationships
and friendships can lead to gangs, which are major contributors of violent crimes
among teens.[6] These are just some of the causes of juvenile delinquency. For a
more detailed account of each of these causes, and more, please see the references
below or the juvenile delinquency page.2

Types
Juvenile delinquency, or offending, can be separated into three categories:

 delinquency, crimes committed by minors, which are dealt with by the

juvenile courts and justice system;
 criminal behavior, crimes dealt with by the criminal justice system;
 status offenses, offenses that are only classified as such because one is a
minor, such as truancy, also dealt with by the juvenile courts.[6]

According to the developmental research of Moffitt (2006),[4] there are two

different types of offenders that emerge in adolescence. One is the repeat offender,
referred to as the life-course-persistent offender, who begins offending or showing
antisocial/aggressive behavior in adolescence (or even childhood) and continues
into adulthood; and the age specific offender, referred to as the adolescence-limited
offender, for whom juvenile offending or delinquency begins and ends during their
period of adolescence.[5] Because most teenagers tend to show some form of
antisocial, jucie or delinquent behavior during adolescence, it is important to
account for these behaviors in childhood in order to determine whether they will be
life-course-persistent offenders or adolescence-limited offenders.[5] Although
adolescence-limited offenders tend to drop all criminal activity once they enter
adulthood and show less pathology than life-course-persistent offenders, they still

2
  http://www.aboutjuveniledelinquents.com/

  http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/qa01203.asp?qaDate=2010
 Eadie, T. & Morley, R. (2003) ‘Crime, Justice and Punishment’ in Baldock, J. et al. (eds)
Social Policy (3 rd edn.) Oxford: Oxford University Press
16
show more mental health, substance abuse, and finance problems, both in
adolescence and adulthood, than those who were never delinquent.[7]3

Applicable crime theories

There are a multitude of different theories on the causes of crime, most if not all of are applicable
to the causes of juvenile delinquency.

Rational choice
Classical criminology stresses that causes of crime lie within the individual offender, rather than
in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational self-interest,
and the importance of free will and personal responsibility is emphasized.[23] Rational choice
theory is the clearest example of this idea. Delinquency is one of the major factors motivated by
rational choice.

Social disorganization
Current positivist approaches generally focus on the culture. A type of criminological theory
attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence or
breakdown of communal institutions (e.g. family, school, church and social
groups.) and communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative
relationships among people.

Strain

Strain theory is associated mainly with the work of Robert Merton. He felt that
there are institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime

3
  Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescence (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
ISBN 9780073405483.

  Moffitt (2006). "Life course persistent versus adolescent limited antisocial behavior". In
Cicchetti, D.; Cohen, D. Developmental Psychopathy (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
  Woolard; Scott (2009). "The legal regulation of adolescence". In Lerner, R.; Steinberg, L.
Handbook of Adolescent psychology 2 (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. pp. 345–371.
ISBN 9780470149225.
  Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000
 Shover, Neal; James, Jennifer; Shover, Neal; Thornton, Williams (2011). "Gender Roles and
Delinquency". Social Forces 58 (1): 162–175. Check date values in:
17
is caused by the difficulty those in poverty have in achieving socially valued goals
by legitimate means.[23] As those with, for instance, poor educational attainment
have difficulty achieving wealth and status by securing well paid employment,
they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain these goals.[24] Merton's
suggests five adaptations to this dilemma:

1. Innovation: individuals who accept socially approved goals, but not

necessarily the socially approved means.
2. Retreatism: those who reject socially approved goals and the means for
acquiring them.
3. Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially approved means, but
lose sight of the goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category.
4. Conformity: those who conform to the system's means and goals.
5. Rebellion: people who negate socially approved goals and means by
creating a new system of acceptable goals and means.

A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-
income families would have poor educational attainment in the first place. More
importantly is the fact that much youth crime does not have an economic
motivation. Strain theory fails to explain violent crime, the type of youth crime that
causes most anxiety to the public.

Differential association

The theory of Differential association also deals with young people in a group
context, and looks at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them
into crime. It suggests young people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent
peers, and learn criminal skills from them. The diminished influence of peers after
men marry has also been cited as a factor in desisting from offending. There is
strong evidence that young people with criminal friends are more likely to commit
crimes themselves. However it may be the case that offenders prefer to associate
with one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone to start offending.
456
Furthermore there is the question of how the delinquent peer group became
delinquent initially.

18
Labeling

Labeling theory is a concept within Criminology that aims to explain deviant

behavior from the social context rather than looking at the individual themselves. It
is part of Interactionism criminology that states that once young people have been
labeled as criminal they are more likely to offend.[23] The idea is that once labelled
as deviant a young person may accept that role, and be more likely to associate
with others who have been similarly labelled.[23] Labelling theorists say that male
children from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, and that this
may partially explain why there are more working class young male offenders.[15]

Social control

Social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization and
social learning builds self-control and can reduce the inclination to indulge in
behavior recognized as antisocial. The four types of control can help prevent
juvenile delinquency are:

behavior, and compliance is rewarded by parents, family, and authority

figures Direct: by which punishment is threatened or applied for
wrongful. Internal: by which a youth refrains from delinquency through
the conscience or superego. Indirect: by identification with those who
influence behavior, say because his or her delinquent act might cause
pain and disappointment to parents and others with whom he or she has
close relationships. Control through needs satisfaction, i.e. if all an
individual's needs are met, Mental/conduct disorders

Juvenile delinquents are often there is no point in criminal activity.

diagnosed with different disorders. Around six to sixteen percent of male teens and
two to nine percent of female teens have a conduct disorder. These can vary from
oppositional-defiant disorder, which is not necessarily aggressive, to antisocial

15 Walklate, S (2003). Understanding Criminology – Current Theoretical Debates,

2nd edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
23 T.; Morley, R. (2003). "Crime, Justice and Punishment". In Baldock, J. et al. Social Policy (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199258945.
24Brown, S (1998) Understanding Youth and Crime (Listening to youth?),
Buckingham: Open University Press.
19
personality disorder, often diagnosed among psychopaths.[25] A conduct disorder
can develop during childhood and then manifest itself during adolescence.[26]

Juvenile delinquents who have recurring encounters with the criminal justice
system, or in other words those who are life-course-persistent offenders, are
sometimes diagnosed with conduct disorders because they show a continuous
disregard for their own and others safety and/or property. Once the juvenile
continues to exhibit the same behavioral patterns and turns eighteen he is then at
risk of being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and much more prone
to become a serious criminal offender.[27] One of the main components used in
diagnosing an adult with antisocial personality disorder consists of presenting
documented history of conduct disorder before the age of 15. These two
personality disorders are analogous in their erratic and aggressive behavior. This is
why habitual juvenile offenders diagnosed with conduct disorder are likely to
exhibit signs of antisocial personality disorder early in life and then as they mature.
Some times these juveniles reach maturation and they develop into career
criminals, or life-course-persistent offenders. "Career criminals begin committing
antisocial behavior before entering grade school and are versatile in that they
engage in an array of destructive behaviors, offend at exceedingly high rates, and
are less likely to quit committing crime as they age."[27]

Quantitative research was completed on 9,945 juvenile male offenders between the
ages of 10 and 18 in the 1970s.[where?] The longitudinal birth cohort was used to
examine a trend among a small percentage of career criminals who accounted for
the largest percentage of crime activity.[28] The trend exhibited a new phenomenon
among habitual offenders. The phenomenon indicated that only 6% of the youth
qualified under their definition of a habitual offender (known today as life-course
persistent offenders, or career criminals) and yet were responsible for 52% of the
delinquency within the entire study.[28] The same 6% of chronic offenders
accounted for 71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults.[28] This
phenomenon was later researched among an adult population in 1977 and resulted
in similar findings. S. A. Mednick did a birth cohort of 30,000 males and found
that 1% of the males were responsible for more than half of the criminal activity.[29]
The habitual crime behavior found among juveniles is similar to that of adults. As
78
stated before most life-course persistent offenders begin exhibiting antisocial,

20
violent, and/or delinquent behavior, prior to adolescence. Therefore, while there is
a high rate of juvenile delinquency, it is the small percentage of life-course
persistent, career criminals that are responsible for most of the violent crimes.

Prevention
Delinquency prevention is the broad term for all efforts aimed at preventing youth
from becoming involved in criminal, or other antisocial, activity.

Because the development of delinquency in youth is influenced by numerous

factors, prevention efforts need to be comprehensive in scope. Prevention services
may include activities such as substance abuse education and treatment, family
counseling, youth mentoring, parenting education, educational support, and youth
sheltering. Increasing availability and use of family planning services, including
education and contraceptives helps to reduce unintended pregnancy and unwanted
births, which are risk factors for delinquency. education Education is the great
equalizer, opening doors to lift themselves out of poverty.... Education also
promotes economic growth, national productivity and innovation, and values of
democ9racy and social cohesion.[30] Prevention through education aides the young
person to interact more effectively in social contexts therefor diminishing need for
delinquency.

It has been noted that often interventions may leave at-risk children worse off then
if there had never been an intervention.[31] This is due primarily to the fact that
placing large groups of at risk children together only propagates delinquent or
violent behavior. "Bad" teens get together to talk about the "bad" things they've
done, and it is received by their peers in a positive reinforcing light, promoting the
behavior among them.[31] A well-known intervention treatment that has not
increased the prevention of juvenile delinquency is the Scared Straight Treatment.
“The harmful effects of Scared Straight and boot-camp programs may be
attributable to juvenile offenders’ vicarious exposure to criminal role models, to
the increased resentment engendered in them by confrontational interactions, or
both” [32] This suggests that exposure to criminals could create a sense of
idealization and defeat the entire purpose of scared straight treatment. Also, this
treatment doesn’t acknowledge the psychological troubles that the teenager may be
9
27 DeLisi, Matt (2005). Career Criminals in Society. London, United Kingdom: Sage
Publications. p. 39. ISBN 1412905532.

28 Marvin, Wolfgang; Figlio, Robert M.; Sellin, Thorsten (1972). Delinquency in a Birth
Cohort. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226905535.
21
experiencing. As mentioned before, peer groups, particularly an association with
antisocial peer groups, is one of the biggest predictors of delinquency, and of life-
course-persistent delinquency. The most efficient interventions are those that not
only separate at-risk teens from anti-social peers, and place them instead with pro-
social ones, but also simultaneously improve their home environment by training
parents with appropriate parenting styles,[31] parenting style being the other large
predictor of juvenile delinquency.10

SCOPE

The reality, fear, and consequences of juvenile violence continue to

plague this Nation and drive legislative and political agendas at every level of
government. More and more States are lowering the age at which juveniles can be
waived or transferred to criminal court and enacting other measures to "get tough"
with violent juvenile offenders. Meanwhile, prognosticators warn of a coming tide
of juvenile violence, driven primarily by increased arrests of juveniles for serious
and violent crime over the past 10 years and shifting demographics of age and race.
These forecasts are based to some extent on the assumption that current trends are
likely to continue.

Yet the hyperbole and alarm that surround much of the political posturing and
new legislation obscure a simple fact: Very few juveniles engage in criminal acts,
especially violent criminal acts. According to the U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data, about
6 percent of all juveniles were arrested for some offense in 1994and of those Sone-
half of 1 percent of juveniles in the Nation were arrested for a violent offense in
1994.1

However, as a number of studies have shown, juveniles commit a proportionately

higher number of violent crimes than members of other age groups, and since the
mid-1980's, juvenile offenders have become increasingly violent.2 These findings
are supported by comparisons of arrest statistics for adult and juvenile offenders.
The number of individuals of all ages arrested for murder and negligent

31 Brown, S (1998) Understanding Youth and Crime (Listening to youth?),

Buckingham: Open University Press.
10 Loy, Pamela; Stephen, Norland (1981). "Convergence and Delinquency". Sociological
Quarterly 22 (2): 275–283.

22
manslaughter increased approximately 23 percent between 1985 and 1994, while
the number of juveniles arrested for those crimes in the same period grew by 150
percent.3

In 1991, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which seeks

information on crimes committed against persons age 12 or older, found that
victims attributed about one in four personal crimes (crimes of violence and theft,
including larceny) to juvenile offenders. Juveniles were reported to be responsible
for about one in five violent crimes, and juveniles in groups were involved in about
one in seven serious violent crimes.

A juvenile's chance of becoming a victim of violence or a violent offender is, to

some extent, affected by race and geography. Data from the NCVS and the FBI's
UCR indicate that African-American juveniles are more likely to be homicide
victims and offenders than other racial and age groups. The rate of homicide
victimizations for African-Americans was six times greater than for whites in
1994. According to the NCVS, African-American males had a rate of violent crime
victimization in 1993 of 76 victimizations per every 1,000 persons, compared with
the rate for white males of 59 victimizations per 1,000 persons.4

While African-Americans constituted 12.5 percent of the population in 1994, they

accounted for nearly 29 percent of the juvenile arrests and more than half of the
arrests for violent crime, including 59 percent of the juvenile homicide arrests.5 11

The majority of juvenile offenders and victims are concentrated in large cities.
FBI data show that more than half of the juvenile homicide arrests in 1994
occurred in six States -- California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and
Texas -- and just four cities -- Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York.
11
1. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Juvenile Offenders and Victims:
Update on Violence iv (1996) [hereinafter Update].

2. Id. at 14-15.

3. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Crime in the United States: 1994, at 221 (1995)
[hereinafter 1994 UCR].

4. Update, supra note 1, at 4.

5. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Sourcebook of Criminal Justic6.sis of Juvenile Homicides:
Where They Occur and the Effectiveness of Adult Court Intervention 1 (July 1996).

23
These accounted for nearly one-third of all juvenile homicide arrests.6 By contrast,
approximately 8 out of every 10 counties in the Nation had no known juvenile
homicide offenders in 1994. 12

Changing Nature of Juvenile Offenders

During the late 1980's and early 1990's, the nature of offenses committed
by juveniles changed. Juvenile crime grew more serious and violent, the rate of
offending by females increased disproportionately, youth began entering the
juvenile justice system at younger ages, and gang involvement became more
prevalent. Recommendations for improving the juvenile justice system must take
these changes into account.

Forecasting the Future: Scenarios for the Year 2010

To establish a context for consideration of the future of the juvenile justice system,
the workshop began with a presentation 1 of analyses of trends in juvenile arrests.
The increase in juvenile arrests during the past decade -- driven by arrests for
violent crimes -- raises concerns in light of the projected 30-percent increase in the
number of 15- to 16-year-olds by 2010. While the juvenile arrest rate for property
crimes remained stable during the late 1980's and early 1990's, the number of
juvenile arrests for violent crimes was 67 percent greater than in 1986.
Nonetheless, a relatively small percentage of juveniles are arrested for violent
crimes. In 1995, the rate was 500 per 100,000, or less than one-half of 1 percent of
the juvenile population. Moreover, the juvenile arrest rate for murder declined in
1994 and 1995. In 1994, 82 percent of all counties in the United States did not
have even one juvenile charged with murder.

Increases in juvenile crime since the mid-1980's reflect several trends in this
country: shifts in the economy, the decline in the extended family and increase in
single parenthood, access to more lethal weapons, and the growing role of gangs.
Projected trends likely to affect juvenile crime in the future include population

6. National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, An Analysis of Juvenile
Homicides: Where They Occur and the Effectiveness of Adult Court Intervention 1 (July 1996).

24
growth, increased immigration, broader cultural diversity, welfare reform that may
lead to increased childhood poverty, more transfers from juvenile to criminal
courts, and soaring prison costs.

Another speaker offered a look at the future in terms of the relationships between
economic injustice, childhood maltreatment, and juvenile delinquency. Twenty-six
percent of American children live below the poverty line, and recent welfare
reforms are expected to add another million children to their ranks. Childhood
poverty correlates with increased risk of victimization, and offenders who
victimize often have histories of earlier victimization. Between 1985 and 1994,
reports of child abuse and neglect increased more than 50 percent. If this trend
continues, it will serve to reinforce the cycle of violence.

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: In Perspective

Findings from OJJDP's Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of
Delinquency gave workshop participants an up-to-date picture of the nature of
juvenile delinquency today. For minor delinquency, offending begins around age 7,
peaks at ages 9 to 13, rises steadily to age 17 for boys and 15 for girls, and then
drops. Nonviolent serious delinquency also begins around age 7 and peaks at age 9.
For boys, it peaks again around age 12 and continues rising through age 19. For
girls, it peaks again from ages 13 to 15, then declines. Violent offending for boys
begins around age 7, then increases steadily from ages 8 to 19. For girls, violent
offending peaks around age 13, then declines. While boys are more apt to commit
delinquent acts than girls, the number of delinquent girls is increasing at a faster
rate.

The earlier youth begin to engage in delinquent behavior, the more likely they are
to become chronic offenders. The relatively small proportion of the Causes and
Correlates study samples across sites represented by chronic, violent offenders
(ranging from 14 to 19 percent) accounted for the bulk of violent juvenile offenses
(ranging from 75 to 82 percent). More serious juvenile offenders are more likely to
have other problems, involving drugs, mental health, and school. They are also
more likely to have been victimized earlier in life. Consequently, intervention
efforts need to be multifaceted.

One example of a multifaceted approach to help serious juvenile offenders who

have a variety of problems is multisystemic therapy (MST), a home-based program
for treating serious offenders with clinical problems. The MST approach is
designed to provide communities with affordable, effective remedies for serious

25
antisocial behavior, mental health problems, and drug and alcohol abuse in
adolescents. The goal of the MST approach is to provide integrative, cost-effective,
family-based treatment that reduces or eliminates the need for out-of-home
placement.

MST is founded on the family preservation model, based on the belief that the
most effective and ethical route to helping juveniles is through helping their
families, and addresses all areas of the offender's life -- self, family, peers, school,
and community. Services are directed toward the psychological, social,
educational, and material needs of families in which a child is in imminent danger
of out-of-home placement.

Evaluations have demonstrated MST's effectiveness in reducing recidivism,

strengthening family relationships, and decreasing aggressive behavior. MST has
also led to decreased criminal activity and incarceration in studies with violent and
chronic juvenile offenders, and results are promising in studies of other
populations that present complex clinical problems.

The Capital Offender Program in Giddings, TX, is another program directed

toward serious, violent offenders. The program addresses juvenile homicide and
uses a therapeutic process. Led by a psychologist and a therapist, groups of eight
offenders meet twice a week for 16 weeks. Group activities, including role playing,
enable offenders to confront what they have done, develop understanding and
empathy, work through their emotional problems, and improve their coping skills.
Youth are referred to the program from other Texas Youth Commission facilities
after they have completed part of their commitment time, finishing out their time at
the Giddings facility. Progress and evaluation of treatment effectiveness are
monitored through administration of self-report measures of empathy, hostility-
aggression, sense of internal versus external control, narcissism, and interpersonal
relatedness. The program has been found to reduce the likelihood of capital
offenders' being arrested for a violent offense within a year from release by 53
percent. This pattern remains statistically significant 3 years following release.
Youth receiving specialized Capital Offender treatment services are reincarcerated
for any offense at a rate of 15.2 percent, compared with 35.6 percent of youth not
receiving specialized treatment services.

(Note: Readers interested in the issue of serious and violent juvenile offenders may
want to read OJJDP's October 1997 Fact Sheet Expert Panel Issues Report On

26
Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders by J. Foote. Copies can be obtained by
calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.)13

New Challenges Posed by Girls in the Juvenile Justice

System
Another aspect of the changing nature of juvenile offenders is the growing number
of girls in the juvenile justice system. In 1995, females represented 26 percent of
juvenile arrests--almost half of them for larceny theft and running away. Although
most female juvenile arrests are for nonviolent offenses, the 1981 to 1995 increase
in arrests for violent crimes for girls (129 percent) was more than double that for
boys (56 percent). During the same period, male juvenile arrests for property
crimes fell 7 percent while female juvenile arrests climbed 42 percent.
Accordingly, the ratio of male to female juvenile arrests for violent crimes changed
from 9 to 1 in 1981 to 6 to 1 in 1995, and the corresponding ratio for property
crimes went from 4 to 1 to 3 to 1 -- with a disproportionate increase in court
referrals for African-American females in all offense categories.

These statistics help explain why the 1992 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act addressed, for the first time, the issue of gender bias,
requiring States to plan for an analysis of the need for -- and types and delivery of -
- gender-specific services. Evidence of gender bias was found, for example, in a
1992 comparative study of 348 violent adolescent females and a similar number of
males. The study revealed that half the male offenders were admitted to
rehabilitation or alternative programs, but only 29.5 percent of females received
alternative treatment.

Workshop attendees heard that once females are within the juvenile justice system,
they are treated more severely than boys for similar offenses -- particularly status
offenses. Typically, they are placed in programs set up for males. There is little
programming designed for females, and few efforts are made to meet their special
needs. A high correlation exists between females' victimization and delinquency.
Females who are sexually abused often run away and end up on the streets, where
they turn to prostitution, drugs, and petty crimes to survive. When they are arrested
for delinquent behavior, their initial victimization is largely ignored.

13
Note: Readers interested in the issue of serious and violent juvenile offenders may want to read OJJDP's October
1997 Fact Sheet Expert Panel Issues Report On Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders by J. Foote. Copies can be
obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.)

27
A representative from the Maryland Department of Justice described an innovative
strategy that provides gender-specific programs and services for adjudicated
female juvenile offenders. Known as the Female Intervention Team, the unit was
developed in 1992 in response to the increased female population coming to the
attention of the juvenile justice system in Maryland. Staff committed to teamwork
develop a network of services focused on females and create an environment in
which girls feel comfortable. Case managers provide a variety of programs and
services, including Girl Scouts, Academic Career Enrichment (ACE), Pregnancy
Prevention, Teen Parenting Group, Parent Support Group, and Substance Abuse
Group. In addition, the female juveniles are offered the Rites of Passage program,
designed to develop cultural and spiritual awareness for young women and teach
them the history of women who paved the road .

Programming for Younger Populations in Juvenile Detention and Corrections

Youth are committing delinquent acts at younger ages. The percentage of offenders
in the detention population under the age of 14 increased from 12 percent in 1987
to 14 percent in 1991.2 One workshop speaker discussed the following problems
posed by very young offenders in detention:

 They face increased risk of victimization by older youth.

 They require different school and program services.
 They need more emotional support.

In part, the difficulty in serving the needs of younger populations is similar to the
difficulties found with other special needs groups. Programs and resources are
rarely available or, if available, usually not sufficient to serve the entire population
in need.

Participants were told about three major OJJDP-funded resources for juvenile
confinement facility practitioners:

 Effective and Innovative Programs Resource Manual (National Juvenile

Detention Association/OJJDP).
 Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice (Research Report)
(National Juvenile Detention Association/OJJDP).
 Juvenile Careworker Resource Guide (American Correctional Association).

Additionally, the speaker reported on a "quick and unscientific" survey he had

conducted of juvenile confinement facilities in the area of special programs. More
than 100 program models were submitted. The responses confirm the existence of
28
creative programs for a wide range of juvenile offenders. Thus, despite the obvious
difficulties and challenges, the central theme of this panelist was that there are
many program models and examples of how to work with younger populations in
juvenile detention and corrections facilities.

A growing number of States are waiving serious and violent juvenile offenders into
the adult justice system. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 6,500
juveniles are inmates in adult prisons. The juvenile justice system needs to provide
appropriate intervention at an earlier stage of a youth's delinquent behavior than
now occurs. Risk classification systems should differentiate between violent and
nonviolent offenders. Community-based sanctions should be used more frequently,
and juvenile justice professionals should have more manageable caseloads. For
juvenile offenders who require incarceration, the use of small, secure treatment
programs with transition to the community by way of group homes and aftercare
programs has proven effective. Youth sentenced under the adult criminal justice
system should be housed in small treatment facilities on the grounds of adult
prisons.

Finally, a Cook County, IL, judge offered his "Top Ten Wish List" for the juvenile
justice system:

 Safety is paramount.
 Educational programs are needed.
 The judiciary and those who work in the juvenile justice system need to be
more involved in the community.
 We must find positive aspects in each child and emphasize them.
 We must relate to children as individuals.
 We must develop effective interventions.
 We must develop the capacity to address mental health needs.
 We must be and provide positive role models for children.
 We must provide children with directions and clear and simple rules and
enforce them fairly.
 We must believe in rehabilitation, care about children, and interact with
them positively.14

Juvenile Gangs and Crime: The Challenge to Detention and Corrections

14
Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System (Statistics Summary) by E. Poe-Yamagata and J.A. Butts. Copies
can be obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.)

29
As demonstrated by the survey recently completed by OJJDP's National Youth
Gang Center, gang activity has extended beyond the inner cities into smaller
communities and suburbs. Nearly half the law enforcement agencies responding to
the survey described their gang activity as getting worse. Gang affiliations present
special challenges and problems within juvenile detention and correctional
facilities. Speakers examined the prevalence of the problem, its implications for
management of rival gang activity within institutions, the impact on programming,
the interplay of problems associated with overcrowding, and the special challenges
to structuring effective aftercare programs for gang-affiliated youth.

A presenter from the State University of West Georgia reported that up to 30

percent of youth incarcerated in Georgia's juvenile corrections facilities claimed
active gang membership. Many youth said they had become gang members for the
first time while they were incarcerated. Staff observed that youth who had been
members of gangs seemed to be recruiting new members inside the institution.
Thus, it seems that the institution may be a breeding ground for new gangs. Eighty-
four percent of institutional staff surveyed said they had not received any training
on how to deal with gang members.

A California Youth Authority (CYA) representative discussed the management of

the more than 2,000 gang members in CYA facilities. Staff receive gang training
with annual updates. CYA does not allow gang activity or gang behavior in its
facilities. The speaker said gang leaders need to be given challenging alternative
activities because they are generally very bright. CYA gang violence reduction
programs, including culturally sensitive parenting programs for fathers, appear to
be having an impact. These programs were to be evaluated beginning in 1997.

A speaker from the Oregon Youth Authority described community-based gang

intervention. He provided an overview of the Minority Youth Concerns Program --
a gang intervention, youth empowerment program designed to give youth positive
exposure to alternatives to their delinquent behavior. He noted that the program is
based on principles that are universally applicable, regardless of ethnic
background. Staff use peer group sessions with incarcerated gang members to
develop social and behavior skills to enable the youth to take responsibility for
their behavior and set goals for their future. The individual's personal growth is
stressed. Gang members are taught paths to change, including how to get a GED,
develop work and job interviewing skills, and change their personal lives when
they leave the facility. They learn that they have a responsibility to the community,
and former gang members go to elementary schools and talk about gang problems.

30
Strong aftercare programs and a support network are essential in helping to
integrate former gang members back into the community following incarceration.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2000
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is the primary
legal framework for juvenile justice in India. The Act provides for a special
approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and
provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in
the purview of the juvenile justice system. This law, brought in compliance of the
1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), repealed the earlier
Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 after India signed and ratified the UNCRC in 1992.
This Act has been further amended in 2006 and 2010. The Government of India is
once again contemplating bringing further amendments and a review committee
has been constituted by Ministry of Women and Child Development which is
reviewing the existing legislation.[when?]

The Act is considered to be extremely progressive legislation and the Model Rules
2007 have further added to the effectiveness of this welfare legislation. However,
the implementation is a very serious concern even in 2013 and the Supreme Court
of India is constantly looking into the implementation of this law in Sampurna
Behrua Versus Union of India and Bachpan Bachao Andolan Versus Union of
India. In addition to the Supreme Court, the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts
are also monitoring implementation of the Act in judicial proceedings. In order to
upgrade the Juvenile Justice Administration System, the Government of India
launched the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) in 2009-10 whereby
financial allocations have been increased and various existing schemes have been
merged under one scheme.

A separate petition titled

Deepika Thusso Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir
is also pending consideration before the Supreme
Court on implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1997 which is applicable in
the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

Based on a resolution passed in 2006 and reiterated again in 2009 in the

Conference of Chief Justices of India, several High Courts have constituted
31
"Juvenile Justice Committees" headed by sitting Judges of High Courts. These
committees supervise and monitor implementation of the Act in their jurisdiction.

History of juvenile justice legislation in India

The first legislation on juvenile justice in India came in 1850 with the Apprentice
Act which required that children between the ages of 10-18 convicted in courts to
be provided vocational training as part of their rehabilitation process. This act was
transplanted by the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, the Indian Jail Committee and
later the Children Act of 1960. The Juvenile Justice Bill was first introduced in the
Lok Sabha on 22 August 1986. This Act was further amended in 2006 and 2011
and is now known as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. The
State of Jammu and Kashmir has repealed its existing juvenile law of 1997 and has
enacted the Jammu & Kashmir (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2013. This
legislation is very similar to India's national juvenile law except that it does not
contain any provision on adoption.

ection 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of
2000) as amended by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Amendment Act, 2006 (33 of 2006)., states that: “Prohibition of publication of
name, etc., of juvenile or child in need of care and protection involved in any
proceeding under the Act-(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or
visual media of any inquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in
need of care and protection under this Act shall disclose the name, address or
school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the
juvenile or child shall nor shall any picture of any such juvenile or child shall be
published: Provided that for any reason to be recorded in writing, the authority
holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is
in the interest of the juvenile or the child. (2) Any person who contravenes the
provisions of sub-section (1), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to
twenty-five thousand rupees”.

While provisions relating to the Juveniles in conflict with law are very important
from jurisprudence point of view, this Act becomes very crucial for Children in
Need of Care and Protection, as they are very large in number. Section 29 of the
Act provides constituting five members District (Administrative unit in India) level

32
quasi-judicial body "Child Welfare Committee". One of the members is designated
as Chairperson. At least one of the members shall be woman. The Committee shall
have the final authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment,
development and rehabilitation of the 'Children in Need of Care and Protection' as
well as to provide for their basic needs and protection of human rights.

The Supreme Court of India vide Judgement in Hari Ram Versus State of
Rajasthan confirmed the retrospective effect of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 in
2009, which was earlier confirmed by some of the High Courts in India,
particularly by Bombay High Court.

Pursuant to an order of Delhi High Court, the Act was further amended in 2011
whereby certain provisions which were discriminatory to the persons affected by
leprosy have been deleted.

A revamped Juvenile Justice Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2015 in
the aftermath of the Delhi Rape Case of December, 2012 in which a minor was
found guilty. The new bill will allow minors in the age group of 16-18 to be tried
as adults if they commit heinous crimes. The crime will be examined by the
Juvenile Justice Board to ascertain if the crime was committed as a 'child' or an
'adult'. [1][2][dead link]

Criticism

The Ministry of Women and Child Development started contemplating bringing

several desired amendments in 2011 and a process of consultation with various
stake holders was initiated. A draft Bill in this regard was prepared and was
pending before the Ministry of Law and Justice for scrutiny and was put up on the
official website of Ministry of Women & Child Development in June 2014 for
public inputs. The Delhi gang rape case in December 2012 had tremendous impact
on public perception of the Act. On of the convicts was found to be juvenile and
sentenced to 3 years in a reform home.[3] Eight writ petitions alleging the Act and
its several provisions to be unconstitutional were heard by the Supreme Court of
India in the second week of July 2013 and were dismissed, holding the Act to be
constitutional. Demands for a reduction of the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 years
were also turned down by the Supreme Court, when the Union of India stated that
there is no proposal to reduce the age of a juvenile.

Many experts and activists viewed post December 2012 Delhi Gang Rape
responses as creation of media sensationalisation of the issue, and cautioned

33
against any regressive move to disturb the momentum of Juvenile Justice
Legislation in the Country. However some sections in the society felt that in view
of terrorism and other serious offences, Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 needed to be
amended to include punitive approaches in the existing Juvenile Justice Law,
which so far is purely rehabilitative and reformative. In July 2014, Indian Express
reported that Pakistan-based terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba had asked its
members to declare their age to be below 18 years. This would ensure that they are
tried under the Juvenile Justice Act instead of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The
maximum punishment under the Act is three years.[4] Some argued that there is no
need of tampering with Juvenile Justice Act for putting up effective deterrent

against terroris

JUVNILE COURT
A juvenile court (or young offender's court) is a tribunal having special authority
to try and pass judgments for crimes committed by children or adolescents who
have not attained the age of majority. In most modern legal systems, children and
adolescents who commit a crime are treated differently from legal adults who have
committed the same crime.

In many jurisdictions, such as in 44 states of the United States, severe offenses,

such as murder and gang-related acts, are treated the same as crimes committed by
adults even for minors (though particularly young offenders may still not be
treatable as adults.) It was reported in 2007 that "Beginning around 35 years ago,
increases in violent juvenile crime permitted judges to transfer juveniles to adult-
criminal courts. No national data exist on the number of juvenile offenders
prosecuted as adults."[1] "The main difference between a juvenile court and an adult
court in England is that the juvenile court has a much wider jurisdiction in terms of
the offenses it can try. It can deal with a juvenile for any offense except homicide,
although it is not bound to deal with a young person for a serious offense such as
robbery or rape; on such a charge he can be committed to the Crown Court for trial
in the same manner as an adult."[2]15

15
Encyclopædia Britannica. Crime and Punishment. Treatment of juvenile offenders. Reformatory movement.

34
Scope
Juvenile court is a special court or department of a trial court which deals with
under-age defendants charged with crimes or who are neglected or out of the
control of their parents. The normal age of these defendants is under 18, but
juvenile court does not have jurisdiction in cases in which minors are charged as
adults. The procedure in juvenile court is not always adversarial, although the
minor is entitled to legal representation by a lawyer. Parents or social workers and
probation officers may be involved in the process to achieve positive results and
save the minor from involvement in future crimes. However, serious crimes and
repeated offenses can result in sentencing juvenile offenders to prison, with
transfer to state prison upon reaching adulthood with limited maximum sentences,
often until the age of 18, 21, 23 or 25. Where parental neglect or loss of control is a
problem, the juvenile court may seek out foster homes for the juvenile, treating the
child as a ward of the court.[3]

A juvenile court handles case of delinquency and dependency.

Delinquency refers to crimes committed by minors, and dependency
includes cases where a non-parental person is chosen to care for a
minor.

Age of criminal responsibility

There is no uniform national age from which a child is accountable in the juvenile
court system; this varies between states, with many setting 10 as the minimum. [6]
Not all minors who commit a crime are committed to juvenile (or adult) court. A
police officer has three choices:

1. Detain and warn the minor against further violations, and then let the
minor go free
2. Detain and warn the minor against further violations, but hold the minor
until a parent or guardian comes for the minor
3. Place the minor in custody and refer the case to an officer16

16
"Legal Dictionary | Law.com". Dictionary.law.com. 2010-12-09. Retrieved 2014-01-20.

35
 CONCLUTION
This brief review of research indicates that a popular opinion
about family impact is wrong: parental absence is not
importantly related to juvenile delinquency. Family interactions
have greater influence on delinquency. Children reared by
competent, affectionate parents who avoid using physical
forms of punishment are unlikely to commit serious crimes
either as juveniles or as adults. On the other hand, children
reared by parents who neglect or reject them are likely to be
greatly influenced by their community environments, which
may offer opportunities and encouragement for criminal
behavior.

36
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnett, J., and Balle-Jensen, L. (1993). "Cultural Bases of Risk Behavior: Danish Adolescents."
Child Development 64(6):1842–1855.

Brook, J. S.; Brook, D. W.; De la Rosa, M.; Whiteman, M.; and Montoya, I. D. (1999). "The
Role of Parents in Protecting Colombian Adolescents from Delinquency and Marijuana Use."
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153:457–464.

Chilton, R. J., and Markle, G. E. (1972). "Family Disruption, Delinquent Conduct and the Effect
of Subclassification." American Sociological Review 37:93–99.

Crockenberg, S., and Litman, C. (1990). "Autonomy as Competence in Two-Year-Olds:

Maternal Correlates of Child Defiance, Compliance, and Self-Assertion." Developmental
Psychology 26:961–971.

Empey, L .T., and Erickson, M. L. (1972). The Provo Experiment: Evaluating Community
Control of Delinquency. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Read more: Juvenile Delinquency - Conclusion - Single Parent, Poverty, Family, Development,
and Criminology - JRank Articles http://family.jrank.org/pages/1008/Juvenile-Delinquency-
Conclusion.html#ixzz3cJkSwLaD

37