Reform or reject? The Pune Porsche incident poses a tricky question for the judiciary

My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time, To let the punishment fit the crime!”
Lines from the famous 18th century comic opera Mikado by WS Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan best explains the judiciary’s predicament when it comes to deciding punishment for the minor allegedly involved in the Pune Porsche incident.
Crime is a human vice. It cannot be eradicated.Our justice system tries to curtail ‘crime’ by punishing the wrong doer and uses various theories of punishment in the process. Some of the more barbaric ones have been abolished, while others have gone through many changes. The aim of punishment remains the same: End the ‘happening’ of crime. And judges do this through interpretations and applications of ‘Deterrent’, ‘Retributive’ and ‘Reformative,’ punishment theories.
The first one relies on swift, certain, and severe punishment. As the name suggests, besides deterring repeat offenders, it is also meant to send a message to society about the consequences, using fear as a tool to convey the severity of the crime. Retributive punishment is about ‘Eye for an Eye’. It intends to inflict a similar amount of pain on the offender as is suffered by theaggrieved party.
Reformative theory has its roots in Mahatma Gandhi’s teaching that ‘An eye for an eye will turn the whole world blind.’ It aims to reform the offender by isolating him till he is ready to become a member of the society again. In the eyes of the aggrieved party, this theory has often been criticised for being too lenient.
The judiciary faces a similar predicament – how to punish the minor who’s allegedly accused of multiple crimes? Should deterrent be the answer because a life is lost due to the minor’s action? Should we consider a different matrix altogether? Call for more accountability from the various agencies? In the Pune case, where abject disregard of law is rampant at multiple levels, not only by the minor but allegedly by his guardians and authorities, how does one decide on punishing the teenager? Should the theory of reform be even considered? Or use deterrence and punishment so severe that it strikes fear
in the peer groups so that such a crime is not repeated?
In the Nirbhaya case, the reformative theory was used for sentencing the minor and was met with massive public outrage. It was urged that the minor should be treated as an adult and eventually the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 to effect this change was passed.
However, trying the minor as an adult may not necessarily be the answer. For there is a life yet to be lived and sometimes the accused may be brazen and negligent, but not necessarily heinous. Sending the minor to a Juvenile Rehabilitation home may appear a bit too lenient to the aggrieved party and public. But would the minor be able to lead a normal life when he comes back to society, or does he face the risk of ostracisation?
I recall a meeting with the eminent jurist late Fali S Nariman, in the context of a case where the accused was a minor and which the media was covering minutely. He explained, how the court deals with such cases tells us whether our legal system is equipped to cope with something which is so much in the public domain, that everybody has their own view.
It’s important to understand that most people have no idea of how jurisprudence works. They want justice to be delivered swiftly and severely, because that’s how they’ve seen it on television. But they need to be reminded that the law must, and will take its own course.
One can hope that the merits of the Pune case are taken into account and the judiciary ‘Will achieve in time, a punishment that fits the crime!’