Diversion From Youth Courts in Five Asia Pacific Jurisdictions

Abstract

Since the 1970s, there has been a trend to move away from punitive and retributive approaches to reintegrative practices. This article provides an account of how young offenders in five Asia Pacific jurisdictions are diverted from being prosecuted in the youth courts and of to where they are diverted. The five cases demonstrate that diversionary measures in the Australasian jurisdictions tend to be more restorative in their practices than are those in Chinese-dominated jurisdictions, which adopt welfare responses. It is concluded that although there is some progress in the areas of decarceration and delegalization, the diversion goals of decategorization and deprofessionalization in Chinese-dominated jurisdictions have yet to be achieved. Such diversionary strategies carry the risk that many more young people committing minor offences may be subject to more intrusive measures and disguised social control in the name of diversion, welfare, or the prevention of future offending.

From Punishment to Control: Assessing Juvenile Diversion in China

“…Since the late 1960s, attempts to limit the impact of stigma and exposure to the carceral environment have catalyzed an international effort to divert youth offenders from criminal courts and prisons (Muncie 1991). In the United States, UK, Australia, and other Western states, diversion has grown as a favored approach to dealing with first-time, low-risk juvenile offenders (Lo et al 2006). The diversion movement in the United States represents a classic example of this trajectory.…”

“…Diversion can also, from an operational perspective, refer to "the use of a wide range of interventions as alternatives to either initial or continued formal processing" (Kammer et al 1997, 51). Law enforcement agencies have employed tactics such as warning (cautioning), family conferencing, drug and psychological counselling, and neighborhood-run educational services to treat juveniles outside the formal system, while simultaneously lessening the caseload burden on prosecutors and the judiciary (Lo et al 2006).…”

Arbitrary Arbitration: Diverting Juveniles Into the Justice System-A Reexamination After 22 Years

“…Globally, the proliferation of diversion programs has coincided with the increased use of restorative justice approaches to youth offending (Lo, Maxwell, & Wong, 2006). During the past 40 years, juvenile diversion has extended beyond the juvenile justice system and now includes many police department structures as important parts of delinquency intervention and prevention strategies.…”

Diversion Under Malaysian Juvenile Justice System: a Case of Too Little Too Late?

“…Since then, many juvenile justice systems have moved to develop and adopt diversion as an alternative measure to respond to the problem of juvenile delinquency (Raynor 2002). To date, diversion still remains the subject of scholarly literature that attracts various continuous interesting discussions on its new ideas, practices and innovations (Lo et al 2006).…”