Neglectful parents bear greater responsibility for juvenile delinquency

The recent tragic accident in Pune, in which a 17-year-old allegedly drunk driver fatally injured two software developers riding motorcycles, has triggered a storm of public outrage and media hype. It also highlights the need for a critical debate on the allocation of responsibility between adolescents and adults in such grave circumstances.

The fuss over juvenile delinquency often fails to recognize the complexity of adolescent behavior. The scientific consensus clearly states that adolescents have lower decision-making capacity compared to adults due to their poorer impulse control and less foresight regarding the consequences of their actions. This inherent cognitive immaturity is why adolescents are inherently less accountable than adults and should therefore be punished less severely, even when convicted of identical crimes. While adolescents undoubtedly face the consequences of their actions, the primary responsibility should rest with adults who exercise authority and influence over them. It is noteworthy that the law prohibits anyone under 18 from driving motor vehicles with an engine capacity of more than 50cc, restricting them to vehicles such as a Luna or a Scooty!

Heinous mistake or heinous crime? The juvenile is charged under Section 304 of the Juvenile Justice Act with intentional homicide not amounting to murder, which carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. Under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ), a crime is considered “heinous” if it warrants a sentence of seven years or more in prison. Under this definition, the juvenile could potentially be tried as an adult and face a significantly longer prison sentence than if tried as a minor. Before advocating for this course of action, however, it is important to consider the principles set out in the Juvenile Justice Act. The Act gives priority to rehabilitation over retribution and recognizes that juveniles are given a lesser degree of culpability due to their age and psychological development. In the present case, the act in question appears to have been the result of gross negligence rather than deliberate or malicious intent, so it is classified as a heinous mistake rather than a heinous crime.

Adult responsibility: The father’s actions show a complete disregard for the safety of his son and the public. Allowing a minor to drive a high-performance car is clearly an act of gross negligence as guardians or parents are expected to supervise their children and prevent them from engaging in illegal activities. Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act makes guardians or vehicle owners liable if a minor is caught driving and commits an offence under the law unless proven otherwise. Similarly, establishments that served alcohol to the minor were blatantly negligent as they knowingly ignored the illegality and potential consequences of their actions.

In response to this incident, the youth is barred from obtaining a driving license until he turns 25 years of age as per the provisions of the MV Act and the luxury car is not allowed to be registered at any RTO office for 12 months as per the provisions of the MV Act. The police have also filed charges against the father and the staff of the establishments under sections 75 and 77 of the JJ Act. These sections target wilful neglect and provision of intoxicants to children respectively. This legal framework establishes the responsibility of adults to protect minors from harm, including harm caused by their immature judgement.

Institutional response: The public outcry and political attention have elicited a positive response. Police and local authorities have responded swiftly. Establishments serving alcohol to minors have been sealed, and the tax department has launched special inspections to ensure compliance with age restrictions. Licenses are revoked for those found violating them. This kind of interagency cooperation is rare but crucial. It is these concerted efforts by the state and county administration that can prevent future incidents. While exemplary imprisonment or the conviction of minors as adults may quench our thirst for retribution, it does little to create a safer society.

Don’t look for scapegoats: Public outrage, fueled by the perception that those involved are getting away with it because of their wealth and status, is understandable. However, it is imperative that this anger does not lead to further injustices, such as the harm to the life of the teenager or the unfair blaming of the driver who was pressured by the family to take responsibility for the accident. And we know what happens when the rich find such scapegoats, given the social dynamics at play.

Instead, the focus should be on constructive solutions that honor the memory of the victims. Ensuring that the youth is held accountable in a way that is appropriate to his or her developmental level, while imposing appropriate legal consequences on the negligent adults and institutions, can set a precedent for future cases. This balanced approach can also lead to systemic changes in the way underage drinking and negligent parenting are addressed legally and societally.

END OF ARTICLE