Latest news with #JuvenileJustice
GMA Network
2 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Lawmakers: Sending 10-year-olds to jail endangers them, perpetuates abuse
Sending children to prison would perpetuate injustice and child abuse, opposition lawmakers said amid a proposal to lower the age of criminal liability to 10 years old. Neophyte lawmakers Chel Diokno of Akbayan party-list and Renee Co of Kabataan party-list, both lawyers, made the warning in response to the proposal made by Senator Robin Padilla. 'Walang batang kusang papatay ng kapwa tao dahil lang protektado siya sa pagkakulong. Ang sahol ng judgment ni Senator Padilla sa kabataan para sabihing lumalakas ang loob nilang i-risk maging kriminal. May pag-aaral bang nagpapatunay nito? Huwag po sana puro bias ang pinapairal,' Co said in a statement. (There is no child who would purposefully kill just because they are protected from incarceration. How lacking is Senator Padilla's view of young people to say that [being below` the age of liability] encourages them to become criminals. Are there studies supporting this? Let's not always let biases rule.) 'Walang tulong ang pagpapakulong sa mga bata para sugpuin ang krimen kung malaya ang mga mastermind at bad influence at umiiral ang krisis na tumutulak sa kanilang kumapit sa patalim. Kapag nilagay sila sa mga siksikang kulungan, napupunta lang sila sa dagdag panganib at magtutuloy ang siklo ng abuso at krimen,' Co added. (Imprisoning children will not help put an end to crime if the masterminds and bad influences are free, and if the crises that push them to desperation prevail. If you put them in crowded cells, you are only putting them in more danger and the cycle of abuse and crime will continue.) Co also criticized Padilla for wanting to send children in conflict with the law to jail and yet push for the release of former President Rodrigo Duterte, who is detained in the Netherlands over alleged crimes against humanity due to the thousands of drug war killings during his term. 'Bakit galit kayo sa kabataan? Kung krimen din lang ang usapin, bakit gusto niyong iligtas sa paglilitis si Rodrigo Duterte na mastermind ng mga heinous crimes na pumaslang ng libo-libong kabataan habang pangulo, pero ang mga batang nagkasala, gigil na gigil kayong habuling mapakulong?' Co said. (Why are you angry at children? If we're talking about crime, why do you want to rescue Rodrigo Duterte—the mastermind of heinous crimes who killed thousands of young people while president—from prosecution, but you are yearning to imprison children who have done wrong?) Diokno backed Co, saying that the existing Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, which increased the age of criminal liability from 9 to 15 years old, is not a free pass for children to commit crime. The law, he said, provides that 'a child aged 15 years old or below at the time of the commission of the offense is exempted from criminal liability, provided that the child is subjected to an intervention program also provided under the same law.' Likewise, Diokno said the Juvenile Justice law provides for Bahay Pag-Asa wherein children in conflict with the law can undergo rehabilitation, and that the existing Bahay Pag-Asa units should instead be strengthened to ensure efficiency. 'Mukhang ang gusto ni Senator Padilla ay isang lipunang marahas at walang malasakit. Pero kung talagang gusto nating solusyunan ang krimen, ayusin natin ang mga sirang tahanan, sirang paaralan, at sirang sistema. Piliin nating maging lipunang may pagkalinga at pag-asa,' Diokno said in a separate statement. (It seems Senator Padilla wants a harsh society without compassion. But if we really want a solution to crime, let us fix these broken homes, schools, and systems. Let us choose to be a society that cares and has hope.) 'What we need is not to amend the law, but providing additional funding support for the children's rehabilitation,' he added. As for children aged 15 to 18 years old who committed heinous crimes, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act law provides punishment depending on the following: age (if 15 years old or below or above 15 but below 18 years old) the act of discernment; and penalty imposed on the offense committed. Children above 15 years old but below 18 years old who acted with discernment in committing a heinous crime face a jail time of more than six years and 'may be placed under suspended sentence and be subjected to rehabilitation programs.' Children who committed heinous crimes aged 15 years old and above but below 18 years old at the time of commission of the offense but are found to have acted without discernment, however, are exempt from criminal responsibility, regardless of the nature of the crime committed. — BM, GMA Integrated News
India Today
5 days ago
- General
- India Today
Bombay High Court dismisses Indian couple's plea to adopt American nephew
In an unprecedented case where an American child was to be adopted by his uncle and aunt from Pune, the Bombay High Court noted that there is no provision in the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act or the Adoption Regulations for the adoption of a child of foreign citizenship, even by relatives, unless the child is either 'in need of care and protection' or a 'child in conflict with law.' The court thus dismissed the plea of the childless bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the petitioners argued that in the absence of any specific provision, the court, under its extraordinary jurisdiction, has the power to permit such an adoption and issue directions to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). However, the court rejected this case involved a couple residing in Pune, both Indian citizens, who sought to adopt a US-born minor who is the biological child of the petitioner-wife's sister. The child was born in America in 2019 but has been living with the couple in Pune. The couple approached CARA to formalise the adoption, but CARA refused to register them on the grounds that the Adoption Regulations do not provide for the adoption of an American citizen. The petitioners, who profess the Muslim faith, do not have a codified personal law governing Shirin Merchant, appearing for the couple, submitted that their additional concern was that US authorities might refuse to renew the child's passport without a valid adoption order, rendering his stay in India potentially petitioners pointed out that the child is now six years old, attends school in India, and is required to travel to the US every year to renew his to do so could result in him becoming an illegal migrant in India. Therefore, considering the child's stability, identity and future prospects, they requested the Court to allow the petition and direct CARA to give its clearance for the CARA stated that while it was sympathetic to the petitioners' predicament, it is bound by the prevailing legal Y S Bhate submitted that while regulations exist for couples from foreign countries adopting Indian children, this was a rare case involving an American child being adopted by Indian citizens, something that has not occurred submitted that neither the JJ Act nor the Adoption Regulations apply to the adoption of a child who is an American further stated that, in such circumstances, CARA cannot give clearance for the adoption unless the child is first adopted in the US under its applicable proposed a solution: the petitioners could adopt the child in the US as per American laws or the child could apply for Indian citizenship through the the surrender of the child by his biological parents, adoption could then be facilitated in India under the JJ Act and prevailing Adoption the couple declined this suggestion, the bench, in its order dismissing the plea, stated: "There is no fundamental right of the petitioners to adopt an American child, who does not fall within the applicability of the JJ Act and the Regulations thereunder, even if he is born to Indian parents. Neither is there any violation of any fundamental right of the child of American nationality to be adopted by an Indian citizen. The predicament of the petitioners can be easily resolved in the manner suggested by CARA."- EndsTune InMust Watch
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Daily Mail
Walmart aisle goes up in smoke in Wisconsin
A 10-year-old boy is in police custody after he allegedly set a Wisconsin Walmart on fire, causing millions of dollars in damage. Shocking footage showed the flames rapidly growing inside the store located in Franklin - about 20 minutes outside of Milwaukee - on Monday. First responders arrived on scene shortly before 9pm to discover heavy plumes of smoke rising from the building. The building's automatic sprinkler system went off and assisted in controlling the blaze, according to the Franklin Fire Department. This allowed for the safe evacuation of all store patrons and employees, and no injuries were reported. Investigators have not revealed how the fire started, but police took a 10-year-old boy from Milwaukee into custody for questioning. 'Arson charges will be referred to the Milwaukee County Juvenile Justice Center as a result of the investigation,' the Franklin Police Department said. While the building is still being assessed, officials believe millions of dollars in damage was done. 'Preliminary damage estimates are still being evaluated, however, extensive smoke damage was noted throughout the structure resulting in the loss of merchandise estimated to be several million dollars,' the Franklin Fire Department said. The store's Facebook page posted, 'Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances we will be closed until further notice.' A Walmart spokesperson told they are directing customers with pharmacy needs to their 27th Street Store location in Milwaukee. April King, a merchandising contractor at the store, told Fox 6 she believes the fire was in the party supplies aisle. 'That was like, the party aisle. What's going to set fire there?' I was shocked, honestly. Because it's like, you know, I've never seen a random fire like that in a place you wouldn't associate with a fire,' King said. 'Customers are impacted and employees at Walmart are impacted because they can't work. So yeah, it is a huge impact to the community, definitely.' She was shocked to learn such a young boy had been taken into custody for starting the fire. 'I don't understand how a 10-year-old could even, one, think to do that and then how did he get the equipment to do that,' King said. Local Walmart patrons were shocked and saddened to learn about the fire.
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Daily Mail
Disturbing moment Walmart aisle goes up in smoke after being set ablaze 'by 10 year-old boy'
A 10-year-old boy is in police custody after he allegedly set a Wisconsin Walmart on fire, causing millions of dollars in damage. Shocking footage showed the flames rapidly growing inside the store located in Franklin - about 20 minutes outside of Milwaukee - on Monday. First responders arrived on scene shortly before 9pm to discover heavy plumes of smoke rising from the building. The building's automatic sprinkler system went off and assisted in controlling the blaze, according to the Franklin Fire Department. This allowed for the safe evacuation of all store patrons and employees, and no injuries were reported. Investigators have not revealed how the fire started, but police took a 10-year-old boy from Milwaukee into custody for questioning. 'Arson charges will be referred to the Milwaukee County Juvenile Justice Center as a result of the investigation,' the Franklin Police Department said. While the building is still being assessed, officials believe millions of dollars in damage was done. 'Preliminary damage estimates are still being evaluated, however, extensive smoke damage was noted throughout the structure resulting in the loss of merchandise estimated to be several million dollars,' the Franklin Fire Department said. The store's Facebook page posted, 'Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances we will be closed until further notice.' A Walmart spokesperson told they are directing customers with pharmacy needs to their 27th Street Store location in Milwaukee. April King, a merchandising contractor at the store, told Fox 6 she believes the fire was in the party supplies aisle. 'That was like, the party aisle. What's going to set fire there?' I was shocked, honestly. Because it's like, you know, I've never seen a random fire like that in a place you wouldn't associate with a fire,' King said. 'Customers are impacted and employees at Walmart are impacted because they can't work. So yeah, it is a huge impact to the community, definitely.' She was shocked to learn such a young boy had been taken into custody for starting the fire. 'I don't understand how a 10-year-old could even, one, think to do that and then how did he get the equipment to do that,' King said. Local Walmart patrons were shocked and saddened to learn about the fire. 'For me, It's concerning how that fire got that large,' customer Anthony Tischer told TMJ4. Tischer's fiancée, Kassandra Helsick, said she was worried the fire could be part of a greater trend going on across the country. 'What are these kids getting into,' Helsick asked. 'It causes panic. Nobody needs that.'
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Indian Express
Porsche car crash: JJB rejects police plea for trying 17 yr old minor driver as an adult
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has today rejected the application by the Pune city police seeking an order that the minor accused in the Porsche car crash be tried as an adult. Two IT engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24 and hailing from Madhya Pradesh, were killed after the speeding Porsche driven by a 17-year-old boy allegedly in an inebriated state hit their motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024. Same day, a first information report (FIR) was lodged against the minor car driver at the Yerwada police station. Subsequently, citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police filed an application at JJB, seeking an order that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case. Prosecution had argued that CCL (minor car driver) accused committed a 'heinous offence' and was driving the Porsche car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences The defence lawyer opposed the application saying the present offence cannot be legally termed as 'heinous. The defence lawyer had also argued that the object of Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. A senior police officer confirmed that the JJB today passed an order in favour of the CCL. Earlier, when police had detained the minor and produced him before the JJB on May 19, he was granted by the JJB on conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', assist RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. But, following a public uproar, the minor was sent to an observation home on May 22. Apparently, the police again submitted applications at the JJB on May 21 and May 22, for trying the CCL as an adult. The minor's paternal aunt had then moved a plea before the high court (HC) and sought his release, claiming that as per the JJ Act 2015, it needs to be ensured that any conflict with the law does not result in him turning into a hardened criminal. On June 25, the HC ordered the minor's release and that he be handed over into the care of his paternal aunt. Subsequently, the minor was released from the observation home. Meanwhile, the police investigation had revealed that when the minor driver, who is son of a prominent realtor, was taken to the government-run Sassoon Hospital after the accident for a medical examination, his blood sample was allegedly replaced with his mother's. A police probe also confirmed that blood samples of the two friends of the minor driver, who were in the Porsche at the time of the accident, were also swapped at Sassoon hospital. Police arrested and chargesheeted ten persons including the minor's parents, Dr Ajay Taware, the then head of the Forensic Medicine Department of Sassoon Hospital, Dr Shrihari Halnor, the casualty medical officer at the time, Atul Ghatkamble, a morgue staff and others. They are booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304, 279, 338, 337, 427, 120 (b), 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 and sections of the Motor Vehicle Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray had argued at the JJB that minor accused had been booked under IPC sections 467 (forgery) and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attract punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to ten year. 'So he has committed a 'heinous offence' as per section 2 (33) of JJ Act, which says that offences having punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more are 'heinous', Hiray had argued. Prosecution had submitted that in case of a heinous offence, as per section 15 (1) of JJ Act, the JJB shall conduct a preliminary assessment of a minor's mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the said crime. Prosecution submitted that after the preliminary assessment under section 15 (1), the JJB can, under section 18 (3) of the JJ Act, pass an order for trial of the minor as an adult. SPP Hiray had argued before the JJB the actual driver of the Porsche had asked the minor not to drive the car. 'But still the minor drove the Porsche after consuming liquor and committed the crime. He knew the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was present at the Sassoon hospital when his blood samples were swapped. He knew swapping blood samples was a crime. So he was aware of the consequences of the offence and should be tried as an adult,' Hiray had said. Defence lawyer Prashant Patil submitted before the JJB that the CCL has no prior criminal record and the Porsche crash incident, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgement, not criminal intention. Citing a Supreme Court judgement in Shilpa Mittal versus State of Delhi case, Patil had claimed that the present offence may not legally qualify as 'heinous' and hence section (15) of JJ Act should not be invoked in this case. Patil had also submitted that as per section 2 (12) of JJ Act, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child. Patil argued the goal of juvenile justice is to 'rehabilitate' and not to punish the minor in the same way as for adults.
