Swarms of Jellyfish Hunted Down Raja Kecil Besar Perak at a Water Sports Event in Teluk Senangin, affecting numerous participants.
In the realm of juvenile justice, a significant shift is underway, driven by international human rights norms and guidelines. This change is centred around the concept of diversion, a measure aimed at addressing the needs of children in conflict with the law without resorting to formal judicial proceedings.
The history of diversion policies can be traced back to the 1980s, with pivotal influence from United Nations standards and guidelines. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, also known as the 'Beijing Rules' (1985), and the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, or the 'Riyadh Guidelines' (1990), were instrumental in promoting alternatives to formal judicial processes, including diversion programs.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989) further enshrined the principle that children in conflict with the law must be treated with dignity and respect for their rights. Diversion seeks to resolve cases without formal adjudication when appropriate, using community, restorative, and individualized measures grounded in developmental and trauma-informed principles.
Notably, diversion is already employed in various legal systems, both formally and informally. For instance, the Juvenile Review Boards (JRBs) in Connecticut, USA, started in 1968, represent one of the earliest formal diversion mechanisms. Over the decades, these boards have evolved to incorporate trauma-informed and restorative justice principles, aligning with international best practices on treating youth offenders with an emphasis on healing and rehabilitation.
In recent decades, the global movement towards diversion and alternatives to incarceration has gained momentum. This shift aligns with the UN's emphasis on the developmental differences of youth, the negative impacts of confinement, and the social benefits of diversionary measures. Research supports this movement, showing better youth outcomes when diversion and rehabilitative approaches are employed.
In Malaysia, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has called for the implementation of a formal diversion policy for children in conflict with the law. Suhakam's Chief Children Commissioner, Dr Farah Nini Dusuki, has highlighted the importance of the term 'diversion'. The Madani government is urged to act without delay regarding diversion for the sake of children, who are considered the greatest treasure and the future.
Guideline 42 on Diversion in the Vienna Guidelines suggests establishing and applying programs to strengthen social assistance, allowing for the diversion of children from the justice system. Close cooperation between child justice sectors, law enforcement, social welfare, and education sectors is necessary to establish and apply such programs.
Diversion is not a denial of accountability but a shift towards a more effective and humane approach for children. It aims to reduce the risk of criminalisation and social stigma, address underlying issues such as trauma, neglect, or mental health, and shift towards restorative and rehabilitative justice.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Beijing Rules and the 15th anniversary of the European Guidelines, emphasising the ongoing importance of diversion in the juvenile justice system. Efforts should be made to provide for community programs, such as temporary supervision and guidance, restitution, and compensation of victims, to facilitate the discretionary disposition of juvenile cases.
The European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject to Sanctions or Measures (2008) do not mention diversion, but the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child-Friendly Justice (2010) encourage diversion as an alternative to judicial proceedings. The term diversion is already used by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (1985), also known as 'Beijing Rules'.
In conclusion, the evolution of diversion policies for children in conflict with the law reflects a significant shift in legal systems, influenced by international human rights norms and guidelines. This shift emphasises rehabilitation, reintegration, and the avoidance of formal judicial proceedings whenever possible, aiming to protect children's dignity, developmental needs, and successful social reintegration.
- The Malaysian government is urged to implement a formal diversion policy for children in conflict with the law, following the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's (Suhakam) call.
- Diversion programs, emphasizing rehabilitation and addressing underlying issues, are an alternative to formal judicial proceedings and have gained momentum globally, supported by research showing better outcomes for youth.
- Guideline 42 on Diversion in the Vienna Guidelines suggests close cooperation between child justice sectors, law enforcement, social welfare, and education sectors to establish and apply diversionary programs.
- Efforts should be made to provide for community programs, such as temporary supervision and guidance, restitution, and compensation of victims, to facilitate the discretionary disposition of juvenile cases, as suggested by the European Guidelines.
- The term 'diversion' is used in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (1985), also known as 'Beijing Rules', and is encouraged as an alternative to judicial proceedings, promoting personal growth, education, and self-development in children.
