Juvenile delinquency, a continuing dilemma

The public outcry has grown shrill and sharp in frustration and anger, not only to revisit the Pangilinan version of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344), but to scrap such version altogether, to stop the juvenile or minor criminals abusing the law.

 To quote the inimitable humor of pal Nito Jabat: “If the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act is amended, those kids sniffing rugby could no longer do their thing in front of a cop and say: ‘Pikat’!” Nito further observes that “children as young as three years old are seen, until now, sniffing rugby in the open, unafraid, because there’s a law protecting them.”

  With or without the proposed amendment on exemption – Rep. Garcia proposes below 12, Senator Sotto proposes below 11, others want below 10 – the 3 years old up to the 10 years old, 11 or 12, can still dare the cops, as in “biay-biay” with “Pikat” many times over. The point is that whatever be the exemption age, these kids are beyond the ambit of the law.

 The “exempt” kids’ parents have to oversee their behavior. These parents can not play possum, or unaware of their children sniffing rugby. The rugby-sniffing is done openly, and often in groups. With the “exempt” kids beyond the law, or of the DSWD, the amended law has to define the responsibility of parents, and subject to penalties in case of failure.

 Regardless of crippling penury, parents have the moral and psychological obligation to bring up their children – “exempt” or beyond – to do and behave right. In the “homeless” life among slums, sidewalks, and other seamy sides, their “culture” breeds rugby-sniffing, idleness, and dirty “cadre” of spoiled brats. The “exempt” kids are not innocent waifs, or angels without halo, who live by begging, stealing, and rugby-sniffing as a “buoy” against hunger.

 It’s very disturbing that the government and society “forget” what is happening to the “exempt” kids, as if they pose no social problem. Can the legislators, the church, etc., give them up as exempt as well from society’s dirty culture?

 The Pangilinan version of R.A. 9344, Section 6, sets a child 15 years of age or under as exempt from criminal liability; those above 15 but below 18 years are also exempt from criminal liability unless acting with discernment.

 Given the present social milieu, say, radio, TV, the proliferation of “frats” even beyond the academic circles, poverty, school drop-outs, etc., psycho maturity comes earlier. “Discernment” age also sets in fast, and the concept of right and wrong as the litmus test of “discernment” comes early. A 10-year-old and older age now is generally with “discernment” unless an idiot, moron, or mentally retarded.

 Those beyond exemption, say, 10, or 11, or 12, up to below 15, the proposed amendment for criminal liability starts. There is a growing cabal of 12 to 15 years old in groups who gang up on solitary tourists, and divesting them of their cellphones, wallets, and jewelry.  While charges may be filed, they only “clog” the DSWD. Conviction results in making the DSWD as “way station”, unless “incorrigible” – meaning beyond reformation or correction – to serve their sentence in jail.

 The DSWD offices nationwide are not fully ready and capable of their role as “halfway houses”, whether or not minor convicts are “incorrigible”. They don’t have enough number of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, guidance counselors, security personnel, decent facilities, and logistics. Much longer time for DSWD study and intervention is needed entailing expenses.

The 15 and above are treated as other criminal offenders. Whether or not the statistics on youthful offenders that used to twit the law would pare down, is not also a given. Meantime, both the “exempt” and those below 15 acting with discernment or not, become equally “headaches” to society, such that, even the proposed amendment isn’t a surefire solution.