Impact of Trying Juveniles as Adults in Heinous Crimes

Written by: Aman Kumar, 4th Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Lovely Professional University

court.

Introduction 

The popular instinct when confronted with a particularly shocking crime is simple: punish the offender.  When the accused is an adolescent who has committed a particularly brutal offence, that instinct hardens  into an immediate demand that the youth be treated exactly like an adult. Lawmakers, judges, victims  and media all respond to this instinct; and democratic politics often pressures legislatures to toughen  penalties or lower thresholds for adult prosecution. In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection  of Children) Act, 2015 (as amended) reflects this political and social tension: it provides, in limited  circumstances, for juveniles aged between 16 and 18 to be tried as adults in “heinous offences.” This  statutory arrangement is rooted in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case and the widespread  public demand for stringent accountability. The question this paper asks is not an abstract moral one— but a practical inquiry into consequences: what is the impact—legal, social and empirical—of  processing young offenders through adult courts and correctional systems? 

To answer this, the paper proceeds in five parts. First, it summarises the statutory rule and its procedural  mechanism. Second, it reviews empirical literature on outcomes when juveniles are processed as adults  (with attention to recidivism, welfare and safety). Third, it analyses the constitutional and human rights  concerns—particularly India’s international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child  (CRC) and related General Comments. Fourth, it examines Indian institutional capacity and procedural  safeguards in practice. Fifth, the paper offers recommendations to align criminal policy with evidence  and rights while retaining accountability for serious crimes.

(Key legal reference: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.) India Code 

Legal framework in India: the exceptional adult trial 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) replaced the earlier 2000 Act  and introduced a new classification of offences—petty, serious and heinous—and a procedure for  determining whether juveniles aged 16–18 accused of heinous offences should be tried as adults. A  “heinous offence” is defined in the Act as an offence punishable with imprisonment for a minimum of  seven years or more. Under the statutory scheme, when a juvenile in the 16–18 age bracket is alleged  to have committed a heinous crime, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducts an inquiry to determine  whether the child is to be tried as an adult. The JJB must consider the juvenile’s mental and physical  capacity, ability to understand the consequences of the offence, and the circumstances of the offence  before deciding to route the matter to a children’s court or to try the juvenile as an adult. The intention  behind the legislative design was to create a discretionary, case-by-case gatekeeping mechanism rather  than an automatic transfer to adult jurisdiction. PRS Legislative Research+1 

While the statutory gatekeeping model seeks proportionality, practical critiques focus on both  procedural vagueness and the heavy discretion entrusted to the JJB, with the consequence that outcomes  vary across districts and cases. Questions arise about the evidentiary standard for the JJB’s inquiry, the  availability of psychiatric assessment, and the safeguards for ensuring meaningful participation and  legal representation for youth. 

Evidence from research: what happens to juveniles tried as adults? 

Policymaking should weigh not only retributive intuitions but also empirically observable effects. A  robust body of international research shows that processing juveniles through adult criminal systems  tends to produce worse outcomes for youth and for public safety. Studies in the United States and  elsewhere indicate higher rates of recidivism, greater exposure to violence and sexual assault, elevated  risk of self-harm and suicide, and reduced access to rehabilitative services for youths placed in adult  facilities. For example, policy reviews have found that youth incarcerated in adult facilities are more  likely to reoffend upon release than those retained in juvenile systems focused on rehabilitation; adult  processing is associated with higher rearrest and reconviction rates. The Sentencing Project+1 

These empirical patterns are explained by multiple mechanisms. Adult prisons are primarily oriented  towards punishment and security—not education, mental health care or structured reintegration—so  adolescents lose access to developmental supports. Being housed with adults exposes young people to  victimisation, coercion and criminal socialisation. The longer and more severe the punitive exposure, 

the more chance that a juvenile’s trajectory becomes entrenched in criminal networks. Furthermore, the  disruption to schooling, family ties and employment prospects multiplies the risk of recidivism. 

In the Indian context, reliable longitudinal data is limited; however, international research is instructive  because it elucidates general developmental and institutional dynamics that are relevant across  jurisdictions. India’s juvenile corrections and aftercare infrastructure remain underdeveloped in many  districts; the prospect of warehousing a 16–year-old in an adult prison with inadequate rehabilitation  services is therefore particularly worrying from both human rights and recidivism standpoints. 

Constitutional and human rights considerations 

Trying juveniles as adults raises immediate constitutional questions. Article 21 guarantees life and  personal liberty; the juvenile justice regime must be consistent with the right to dignity and the  rehabilitative objectives that underpin modern juvenile law. India is a State Party to the Convention on  the Rights of the Child (CRC), which requires that the treatment of children in conflict with the law  shall conform with the child’s sense of dignity and worth and shall promote reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society. CRC General Comment No. 24 (2019) emphasises that contact  with the criminal justice system is harmful to children and must be a measure of last resort, with a focus  on diversion and rehabilitation. These international standards place a heavy normative burden upon  domestic law and practice to ensure that any decision to subject juveniles to adult-style accountability  is strictly necessary, proportionate and accompanied by protective measures. Digital Library 

Indian courts have attempted to balance these concerns by insisting on a careful inquiry before  transferring juveniles. Nevertheless, the constitutional principle of equality and the guarantee against  cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment call for special care when a state elects to subject a child to adult  processing and penalties. The legal architecture must protect procedural fairness (including access to  counsel, age assessment protocols, and psychiatric evaluation) and ensure that the juvenile’s best  interests are a primary consideration. 

Institutional capacity and procedural safeguards: the gap between law and practice 

Even where the law requires an individualized inquiry, outcomes depend on institutional capacity. The  JJ Act prescribes the JJB as the gatekeeper, but the Act presumes the practical availability of expert  assessments, child psychologists, social workers, and trained legal aid for juveniles—resources that are  sparse in many districts. Empirical reporting and NGO documentation frequently note that JJBs operate  with limited budgets, inadequate forensic and psychiatric resources, and unreliable age verification

mechanisms. In such contexts, the discretionary power devolved to the Board may be exercised without  the careful factual foundation the statute envisages. 

Additionally, when juveniles are directed to adult courts, the juvenile’s procedural protections often  erode. Adult courts and prisons are not typically configured to secure privacy, to allow family  participation, or to provide age-appropriate rehabilitative responses. The result can be disproportionate  outcomes where juveniles receive lengthy custodial sentences intended for adult offenders, while  support for reintegration remains negligible. These implementation gaps underscore the need to treat  statutory design and resource allocation as twin pillars of juvenile justice reform. 

Comparative perspectives: lessons from other jurisdictions 

Comparative experience offers instructive contrasts. Several jurisdictions have experimented with  different models for serious juvenile offending—some using automatic transfer laws, others relying on  judicial waiver systems, and yet others retaining juvenile court jurisdiction but providing for enhanced  sentences. The research literature suggests that automatic transfer laws—whereby juveniles of a certain  age are automatically prosecuted as adults—tend to produce worse outcomes than discretionary  gatekeeping, because they fail to account for individual maturity and amenability to rehabilitation. 

Judicial waiver systems (where judges evaluate transfer) can be fairer in principle, but only if robust  procedural supports and standardized criteria exist. Safeguards such as mandatory expert assessments,  clear statutory factors (e.g., maturity, prior history, psychological profile), and appellate review can  mitigate arbitrary outcomes. Countries that invest in specialised juvenile facilities with evidence-based  rehabilitation show better reintegration outcomes and lower recidivism among serious offenders. 

Practical impacts on victims, communities and deterrence 

A common policy argument for trying juveniles as adults is deterrence: the prospect of adult punishment  will dissuade potential offenders. Empirical evidence, however, is ambivalent. General deterrence—the  idea that harsher penalties deter crime in the population—depends on certainty, swiftness and clarity of  punishment. Introducing the threat of adult prosecution for juveniles is blunt and irregular; it may not  produce the precision of certainty needed for strong deterrent effects. Moreover, given that many  juvenile offences are opportunistic or driven by social factors (poverty, trauma, substance abuse),  enhanced punitive risk may not address root causes. 

Victims and communities often demand visible accountability, and adult trials may satisfy those  demands symbolically. But restorative justice approaches—victim-offender mediation, reparative  orders, community supervision—can sometimes offer more meaningful redress and community healing 

without sidelining rehabilitation. Therefore, policy must balance victims’ needs for accountability with  the long-term societal interest in preventing reoffending. 

Policy analysis: calibration, safeguards and alternatives 

The central policy challenge is calibration: holding juveniles accountable for grave wrongs while  avoiding institutional responses that entrench criminal careers. The JJ Act’s discretionary inquiry model  is conceptually preferable to categorical transfer, but design alone is insufficient. The following reforms  merit consideration: 

1. Strengthen JJB capacity and standards: Mandate independent, court-appointed  psychological and forensic assessments; codify the standard of proof and factors to be  considered; require written reasons for decisions; and provide for prompt appellate review. 

2. Specialised child-appropriate custodial options: If a juvenile is to be sanctioned more  severely, ensure the sentence is served in a juvenile custodial home offering evidence-based  rehabilitation, not in adult prisons. 

3. Enhanced diversion and restorative options: For eligible cases, prioritise diversion programs  that include reparative measures, counselling and community supervision—especially where  remorse and amenability to rehabilitation are evident. 

4. Data collection and longitudinal evaluation: Establish a centralised data system to track  outcomes of juveniles processed as adults versus juveniles retained in juvenile systems; monitor  recidivism, employment, education and mental health outcomes. 

5. Victim-centred responses: Integrate victim restitution and restorative measures into juvenile  proceedings so that victims receive tangible redress without automatically defaulting to adult  penal responses. 

6. Training and legal aid: Ensure that juveniles receive immediate access to legal aid and that  JJB members, prosecutors and police receive child-sensitive training. 

These reforms aim to make the exceptional transfer truly exceptional—based on evidence and  accompanied by child-centred protections—rather than a reflexive legislative response to public  outrage. 

Conclusion

Trying juveniles as adults for heinous crimes is a policy fraught with moral intensity and legal  complexity. India’s statutory response, allowing discretionary transfer for 16–18-year-olds in heinous  offences—seeks a middle path between total leniency and categorical adultification. Yet the promise of  this hybrid model is fragile in the absence of institutional capacity, procedural rigor and rehabilitative  infrastructure. Empirical research cautions that adult processing typically worsens outcomes for youth  and for public safety; international human rights norms direct states to use the criminal justice system  against children as a last resort. 

If the goal of criminal law is to protect society while restoring offenders as law-abiding members, then  policy must be evidence-driven, rights-respecting and institutionally realistic. This means strengthening  JJBs, guaranteeing expert assessments, expanding rehabilitative custodial options, tracking outcomes  and centring restorative responses where possible. Only then can the system reconcile the competing  demands of accountability and the special status of children under law. 

References (selected, APA style) 

• Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 24 (2019). United Nations  Committee on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from  https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3899429/files/CRC_C_GC_24-EN.pdf. Digital Library 

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Government of India. (Act No.2  of 2016). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2148/1/a2016-2.pdf.  India Code 

• PRS Legislative Research. (2015). The Juvenile Justice Bill, 2015: All you need to know.  Retrieved from https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/the-juvenile-justice-bill-2015-all-you-need-to know?page=2. PRS Legislative Research 

• UNICEF India. (2024). Child protection: Juvenile justice and alternatives. Retrieved from  https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/child-protection. UNICEF 

• The Sentencing Project. (2023). Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the  Evidence. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/why-youth-incarceration fails-an-updated-review-of-the-evidence/. The Sentencing Project 

• Robertson, A. A., et al. (2022). Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Youth: Findings From a  Multi-Site Study. Journal/PMC. Retrieved from  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9285988/. PMC

• Human Rights Watch. (2025). Kids You Throw Away: New Jersey's Indiscriminate Prosecution  of Children as Adults. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/02/11/kids-you-throw away/new-jerseys-indiscriminate-prosecution-of-children-as-adults