Reform or reject? The Porsche incident in Pune poses a delicate question for the judiciary

I will achieve my noble goal in time and ensure that the punishment is appropriate for the crime!”
Lines from the famous 18th century comic opera “Mikado” by WS Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan best illustrate the predicament of the justice system in determining the punishment for the minor allegedly involved in the Porsche incident in Pune.
Crime is a human vice. It cannot be eradicated. Our legal system tries to curb “crime” by punishing the wrongdoers using various penal theories. Some of the more barbaric ones have been abolished, while others have undergone many changes. The goal of punishment remains the same: to stop the “happening” of crime. And judges do this by interpreting and applying “deterrent,” “retributive,” and “reformative” penal theories.
The first method is based on swift, certain and harsh punishment. As the name suggests, it is intended not only to deter repeat offenders but also to send a message to society about the consequences by using fear as a means of conveying the seriousness of the crime. Retributive punishment is an “eye for an eye” and is intended to inflict a similar level of pain on the offender as the victim suffers.
The reformatory theory has its roots in Mahatma Gandhi’s teaching “an eye for an eye – the whole world goes blind”. It aims to reform the offender by isolating him until he is ready to become a member of society again. From the perspective of the injured party, this theory has often been criticized as being too lenient.
The judiciary faces a similar dilemma: how to punish a minor allegedly accused of multiple crimes? Should deterrence be the answer because a life is lost due to the minor’s act? Should we consider a completely different matrix? Demand more accountability from the various authorities? In the case of Pune, where there is abject disregard for the law at multiple levels, not only on the part of the minor but allegedly also on the part of his guardians and authorities, how does one decide on the punishment of the teenager? Should the theory of reform even be considered? Or should deterrence and punishment be so severe as to instill fear?
in peer groups to prevent such crimes from happening again?
In the Nirbhaya case, the reform theory was invoked to convict the minor and was met with massive public outrage. There was a demand to treat the minor as an adult and eventually the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was passed to bring about this change.
However, trying the minor as an adult is not necessarily the solution. He still has his life to live, and sometimes the accused may be brazen and negligent, but not necessarily heinous. Sending the minor to a youth rehabilitation center may seem a little too lenient to the injured party and the public. But could the minor lead a normal life upon returning to society, or is he at risk of ostracism?
I remember meeting the famous jurist Fali S. Nariman in connection with a case in which the accused was a minor and which was widely covered in the media. He explained that the way the court deals with such cases shows whether our legal system is capable of dealing with something that is so much in the public interest that everyone has their own opinion on it.
It is important to understand that most people have no idea how the legal system works. They want justice to be administered swiftly and strictly because that is what they have seen on television. But they must be reminded that the law must and will take its own course.
One can only hope that the facts of the Pune case will be taken into account and that the judiciary will “reach a punishment in a timely manner that is appropriate to the crime!”

Bapu Deedwania, Lecturer at NLU Jodhpur, Senior Legal Correspondent, now a freelance writer