A young 23 year old was brutally assaulted in Delhi in a bus by six men. We all heard horrific details of an iron rod being repeatedly shoved into her vagina and these six men brutalising her body while enjoying themselves. He was one of them. He was the one who shoved the rod in her and watched her writhe in pain. But he was only 17 years and 6 months old. 6 months short of being a legal adult.

Is it a good enough excuse? Are we actually saying that those 6 months make all the difference in the heinousness of his actions?

The juvenile court gave the most severe sentence in their ambit and can now say that they did their job. But as a part of a judicial system which is expected to uphold the value of ‘truth shall triumph’ can one honestly say justice has been served? Can anyone with a clean conscience tell the family of the girl that he is going to pay his dues?

Yes he was only 17. But do his actions reflect anything juvenile for him to be tried like one? It also makes me question, if he were 16 would it have been ok to try him in a juvenile court and then send him to a reform facility?

A17 year old boy is a child in one part of the world even if he committed the most heinous crime but a 14 year old girl in another part of the world is much older than her chronological age and hence her statutory rape is seen as a consensual sexual relationship with her high school teacher. (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/shock-sentence-judge-lets-teacher-stacey-rambold-30-days-repeated-rapes-14-year-old)

The 17 year old boy will be integrated into the society after three years in a correctional facility and the 54 year old high school teacher will spend 30 days in prison and be enrolled in a treatment program. Their dues paid.

A 17 year old girl committed suicide and a 23 year old woman died trying to fight internal injuries.

And I ask you…how old is old enough to take responsibility for your action and pay the price?