How do we treat juvenile rapists, has become a big question in front of us! One faction says with rape the juvenility of rapist cease to exist. A juvenile who is capable to penetrate has crossed the boundaries of childhood and has matured into an adult. Thus, a juvenile who rapes must be treated as an adult criminal.
Here, what we are doing is; we are defining the parameter of maturity on capability of erection and penetration rather than age. We must answer this question before we proceed to uphold this view. That is, what would we do if extremely minor child (rarest of rare case) who has become sexually capable to penetrate forms a part of gang which raped a woman, say a child of ten or twelve years old? Anatomically, it is possible for such minors to get erections required for penetrations.
Suppose, if age to be dealt as adult in crime as of rape is decreased to sixteen from eighteen, what would be the scenario if fifteen or fourteen years old boy becomes an accused in future gang rapes?
Thus, mere capability to penetrate would be ambiguous and vary with accused to accused and we will fail to mark a specific boundary line, only age factor can do the job properly. There are some limitations of law and such case could fit into limitations of it.
Another point is that whether the juvenile rapist committed the rape all alone, were planning or intention and force is involved; or formed a part of gang in which other adult accused were involved. And they were these adult rapists who allured (pleasure or proof of manhood etc) the juvenile to join them as co-criminal is a big question, in this scenario, what should we say, was the co-criminal juvenile mentally fit enough to comprehend the action and its consequence on his and victim’s life?
Another issue is that there are ample cases of men who fall in love with under-eighteen girls, they have consensual sexual relations. Indian laws states even consensual sexual relation with an under eighteen girl is kidnapping and rape. Numerous men are accused in such criminal cases where they had consensual sexual relations with under-eighteen girls only to be held accused of rape later on.
Here, there is a double standard in our outlook. When an under-eighteen boy rapes a woman, a lot of voices in India ask to treat him as an adult, reason for the same being he is mentally capable enough to comprehend what he is doing. But, when same age under eighteen girls has consensual sexual relations with a man, that man is a rapist in eyes of Indian laws.
Here, isn’t the girl too mentally capable enough to comprehend what she is doing? Then why should we hold her partner as rapist? Our Constitution asks us not to discriminate on grounds of gender as well, isn’t this discrimination purely on grounds of gender?
I do not support rape or sexual offences on women or girls, in any manner, rape and sexual offenses are crimes from all angles. What I want to say is if a minor rapist should be treated as adult criminal, how can minor girl be considered as victims when she had consensual sexual relation with a man who is accused of rapes later on?
Here, what we are doing is; we are defining the parameter of maturity on capability of erection and penetration rather than age. We must answer this question before we proceed to uphold this view. That is, what would we do if extremely minor child (rarest of rare case) who has become sexually capable to penetrate forms a part of gang which raped a woman, say a child of ten or twelve years old? Anatomically, it is possible for such minors to get erections required for penetrations.
Suppose, if age to be dealt as adult in crime as of rape is decreased to sixteen from eighteen, what would be the scenario if fifteen or fourteen years old boy becomes an accused in future gang rapes?
Thus, mere capability to penetrate would be ambiguous and vary with accused to accused and we will fail to mark a specific boundary line, only age factor can do the job properly. There are some limitations of law and such case could fit into limitations of it.
Another point is that whether the juvenile rapist committed the rape all alone, were planning or intention and force is involved; or formed a part of gang in which other adult accused were involved. And they were these adult rapists who allured (pleasure or proof of manhood etc) the juvenile to join them as co-criminal is a big question, in this scenario, what should we say, was the co-criminal juvenile mentally fit enough to comprehend the action and its consequence on his and victim’s life?
Another issue is that there are ample cases of men who fall in love with under-eighteen girls, they have consensual sexual relations. Indian laws states even consensual sexual relation with an under eighteen girl is kidnapping and rape. Numerous men are accused in such criminal cases where they had consensual sexual relations with under-eighteen girls only to be held accused of rape later on.
Here, there is a double standard in our outlook. When an under-eighteen boy rapes a woman, a lot of voices in India ask to treat him as an adult, reason for the same being he is mentally capable enough to comprehend what he is doing. But, when same age under eighteen girls has consensual sexual relations with a man, that man is a rapist in eyes of Indian laws.
Here, isn’t the girl too mentally capable enough to comprehend what she is doing? Then why should we hold her partner as rapist? Our Constitution asks us not to discriminate on grounds of gender as well, isn’t this discrimination purely on grounds of gender?
I do not support rape or sexual offences on women or girls, in any manner, rape and sexual offenses are crimes from all angles. What I want to say is if a minor rapist should be treated as adult criminal, how can minor girl be considered as victims when she had consensual sexual relation with a man who is accused of rapes later on?
