Regarding the article "Teens admit forcing boy to take fatal swim" in the June 9 edition, is the Juvenile Law really necessary? This argument always comes up when minors commit violent crimes.
A bill to lower the age of majority from 20 to 18 at which point a teen could be formally charged with any crime has been discussed in the Diet recently. The Juvenile Law places the focus on reform rather than punishment. However, can minors who have killed people cruelly and inhumanly really be reformed?
This past Sunday, we had an incident of teen boys beating a friend and causing his death by drowning, and in late February, a similar murder was committed. A 13-year-old boy was found dead near the Tama River in Kawasaki. This murder was committed by some minors with a group leader, an 18-year-old boy.
Do you think this 18-year-old-boy is really going to be reformed? Is he really going to reflect on his actions under the Juvenile Law? I doubt it. What he has done should never be forgiven. Of course, it is true that many minors who have committed crimes can be reformed, and maybe that will be true for the latest teen killers. However, the Juvenile Law should not be applied in all cases.
I do not think the Juvenile Law is unnecessary, but I just think all criminals regardless of age should be given punishment appropriate for the crime they have committed.
The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.