Keeping Freed Juvenile Delinquents at Bay With Electronic Anklets

The Centre and the judiciary could consider electronic surveillance on habitual offenders, writes R K Raghavan.

In the long and fascinating history of criminology one has been witness to a sharp division between thinkers who have pushed the case for retribution and deterrence and those who believe in reformation of offenders. The debate – as in the case of the rationale of capital punishment – will never be decisive.

It will be unfair to berate either school as being didactic and far removed from the harsh realities of the ground situation in which crime remains an enigma and a source of enormous disquiet among law abiding members of civil society. This is especially in times of a high crime rate when there is an unbridled demand for deterrent punishments of a criminal, violent or otherwise.

This is the backdrop against which one must view the animated debate currently in our country with regard to an infamous but unnamed 21-year-old convict who will be released into society in the next few weeks. He was 18 when he committed the horrific crime of sexual assault and murder of a young woman – Nirbhaya – in the national capital on December 16, 2012.

E-Surveillance of Juvenile Offenders

• Question to be asked regarding the juvenile in Nirbhaya case is whether there are ways to keep a vigil on the young offender after release
  
• Electronic surveillance of offenders as practiced in the West has many advantages; it prevents the offender from committing crime and ensures safety of victims
  
• Technology deployed in e-surveillance is simple and investment is not huge
  
• Our government and the judiciary should consider whether such an electronic monitoring can be introduced by law or through executive order
  
• Electronic surveillance has its limitations as well, in terms of numbers of cameras and the ability to keep an eye on all offenders simultaneously
  

The ‘Juvenile’ Convict

Since the boy accused – grapevine has it that he was the most violent of the group of six – was under 18 when he and others attacked the hapless woman, he was remanded to a home for juvenile correction for three years. He will shortly complete the term and is due for release. It is, however, learnt that the youth will not be totally free from supervision and that the authorities in Delhi are likely to ensure that he spends a year with an NGO.

The woman’s parents are agitated and are said to be contemplating several measures to halt the boy’s release. You cannot fault them because of the enormity of the crime and the wrong message they believe the release could send out to those who display criminal proclivity. The adverse reaction is based on a fear that it would generate misinformation that the young convict had been let off with a mild penalty.

In my view the media has a major role in disseminating the correct information. First, the common man should be made to understand that the criminal law and procedure give no option to the judiciary except to release the boy on his completing three years of detention. The speculated move that, on release from the home, he should be made to spend a year with an NGO, appears to me to be extrajudicial, one that finds no place in any statute. When this is the case it would be downright illegal to use the subterfuges of law to keep him under further detention.

Fears Aren’t Frivolous

The demand to retain the accused in continued judicial custody is attributable to two sets of emotions, one springing from retribution, and the other to a genuine fear that he will commit another heinous crime. Both are human and they cannot be dismissed as frivolous.

The point for debate is whether there are means by which, within the framework of law, the young offender could be continued to be supervised after release, so that he behaves himself and does not relapse into crime. This is a reasonable approach to assuage the feelings of an enraged section of society not reconciled to the boy walking out of custody.

Electronic Surveillance

Criminal procedure in the West, especially in the US and the UK, had sought to remedy the situation through a device which goes by the name ‘electronic surveillance’. Under this arrangement, every convict, juvenile or older, who is considered to be a threat to the citizenry, is provided an anklet or a collar or a bracelet that he has to continuously wear on release from custody so that his movements could be monitored remotely after he walks out of prison.

There are several advantages here. First, the offender knows he is under watch, so that he does not dare to hurt others. Secondly, he keeps off places where potential victims either live or work. This is a reasonable safeguard against misconduct by violent criminals and sexual offenders. For instance, in the case of a convicted paedophile, there is a restriction that he shall not go anywhere near a school or any other place meant for children’s educational or recreational activities.

Reasonable Success in the West

I have seen this implemented strictly in the UK. Instead of remaining inside a prison, a convict is released on condition of good behavior. The practice has been in vogue for nearly three decades and has worked reasonably well. It calls for a certain investment by the government in terms of basic equipment to be fitted on the person under surveillance and a monitoring centre.

Several studies, including that of the National Institute of Justice-funded ones in the US, have revealed encouraging results. The system ensures certain deterrence and combines with it an assurance of intervention by law enforcement agencies, when demanded by misconduct on the part of the offender under observation.

The technology is simple and the investment is not huge. Actually, a few studies have found that the arrangement is cost-effective to maintain a prisoner in government custody and a greater availability of prison space at a time, the world over, there is the complaint of overcrowding of prisons.

Government, Judiciary Have to Agree

It is for the consideration of our governments and the judiciary whether electronic monitoring of specified categories of offenders, especially those convicted for sexual assaults, could be introduced by law or through executive order. The constitutionality of such a provision in law will have to be gone into thoroughly before any move is made. The Right to Freedom is fundamental, and any over zealousness here could lead to legal problems.

In any case, one cannot expect miracles here. Electronic surveillance has its limitations. It is identical to the issues involved in monitoring public buildings and private premises. There is a limitation in terms of numbers of cameras and the ability to keep an eye on all of them simultaneously.

There is the human element and its attendant gaps which technology cannot bridge. Possibly it is too late in the day to try this out on the Nirbhaya convict. But the matter is worthy of an informed debate.

(The writer is a former CBI Director)