Juvenile Justice - Should we punish them or should we not!

Two kids in school, thirteen year olds, fought with one another. Let us call them A and B. One of them, the boy A broke the nose of the other.

Complaints were made and the matter went to the Principal of the school. Mother of B was all worked up. Look at the way A has broken by son, B's nose. All bloody and harsh. A is a rogue, a rowdy and has to be punished strongly so that he learns his lessons. Mother of A on the other hand says that the fight could have gone either way. It was just fate that B ended up with a broken nose. It could have been A easily. And will mother of B talk about it the same way if it had been the other way round.

For one, most of the 'crimes' of the juvenile are minor in nature. And your own point of view will determine the way you think and behave about such juveniles. Don't we not find neighbouring women who cry hoarse about your kids as if their kids are absolute nice ones.

Right, Nirbhaya is an heinous crime. No doubt. When we make a law, a heinous crime itself becomes a major definition. We need to remember, people will misuse 'heinous' to suit their needs. 

In a crowd, not just children even grown ups act and do different things. What they will not do alone, they will do in a group. This is a crowd psychology that everyone knows about. So when a young boy is with a crowd of ruffian adults who display rowdy-ism, then they too would display the same. The same boys drink with them; smoke with them. Who is at fault? The grown up or the kid?

It is the grown ups who need to be taken to task and the kid should be given the support he badly deserves. And what the courts have done in the 'Nirbhaya Case' is fair for the kid. Let us not raise any more questions about it and try to hang the kid. He needs the society's support to become a normal child. Let us give him that!