Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Asian Journal of Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept and practice of diversion are not a novel phenomenon. For many years, diversion from formal adjudication by court has been widely adopted as an important feature of various juvenile justice systems across the countries. There are different forms of diversion programmes which have been designed and implemented with the aim to divert children from direct contact with formal criminal process. Various researches on diversion programmes have disclosed positive impacts on their effectiveness in handling children in conflict with the law. This article focuses on criminal process under current Malaysian juvenile justice, in which the concept of diversion is still a strange subject. It highlights issues under current juvenile criminal justice and examines the possibility of integrating diversion programmes as alternative measures to deal with children in conflict with the law. Introduction of diversion programmes as part of the current system is seemed as potential alternative measures to improve the effectiveness of the current Malaysian juvenile justice system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ibid, p. 314.

  2. Adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 45/110 of 14 December 1990.

  3. Rule 5(1) of the Tokyo Rules.

  4. Section 283(o) of the CYPFA.

  5. Section 66ZA of the Crime and Public Disorder Act of 1998.

  6. Ibid, p. 972.

  7. § 45 (3) of the Germany Juvenile Justice Act 1923.

  8. Article 45A of the Greece Criminal Procedure Act.

  9. Section 246 of the CYPFA.

  10. Adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989.

  11. Article 40(3)(b) of the CRC.

  12. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10 (2007): Children’s rights in juvenile justice, at paragraph 24.

  13. Article 40(4) of the CRC.

  14. Adopted by the United Nation General Assembly Resolution 40/33, 29 November 1985.

  15. Paragraph 11 of the Beijing Rules.

  16. Rule 13.1 of the Beijing Rules.

  17. Adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990.

  18. Adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990.

  19. Rules 5 and 6 of the Riyadh Guidelines.

  20. Rules 7, 8 and 10 of the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on “New ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice” of 2003 (Rec. (2003).

  21. Article 40(4) of the CRC and Paragraph 18 of the Beijing Rules.

  22. Article 1 of the CRC defines a child “as a person below the age of 18 unless the laws of a particular country set the legal age for adulthood younger”.

  23. Section 11(2) of the Child Act 2001.

  24. Section 11(3) of the Child Act 2001.

  25. Section 12(3) of the Child Act 2001.

  26. Section 15 of the Child Act 2001.

  27. Section 11(5) of the Child Act 2001.

  28. Rule 3(3) of the Essential(Security Cases) Regulations 1975.

  29. Section 83(4) of the Child Act 2001.

  30. Henry Gurney schools are rehabilitation centres for juvenile offenders between the age of 14 and 21 years old operated by the Prison Department of Malaysia. The schools were named after the previous British High Commissioner in Malaysia, Sir Henry Gurney, who inaugurated the first school on 19th July 1950.

  31. Section 97(1) of the Child Act 2001.

  32. Section 97(1) of the Child Act 2001.

  33. [2008] 1 MLJ 1.

  34. Refer also to the cases of Asri Beddu [2012] 1 LNS 807, KWK (A CHILD) v. PP [2003] 4 CLJ 51, PP v KK [2009] 1 LNS 578, PP v Saiful Afikin bin Mohd Firus[1996] 4 MLJ 309 and PP v Sangkar a/l Ratnam[2007] 7 MLJ 353

  35. Section 91(1)(g) of the Child Act 2001.

  36. Article 37 of the CRC.

  37. Article 17.3of the Beijing Rules.

  38. Article 7 of the ICCPR.

  39. Regulation 2(1) of the ESCAR provides that security cases refer any offence against any written law, the commission of which is certified by the Attorney General to affect the security of the Federation.

  40. [1978] 1 MLJ 68.

  41. Article 37(a) of the CRC.

  42. Rule 17(2) of the Beijing Rules.

  43. Article 6.5 ICCPR.

  44. Ibid, p. 2.

  45. http://www.utusan.com.my/berita/nasional/kes-juvenil-meningkat-perlu-perhatian-semua-1.64169 accessed on 9th November 2015.

  46. Ibid, p. 82.

  47. Ibid, p. 110.

  48. Ibid, p. 106.

  49. Ibid, p. 110.

  50. Ibid, p. 44.

  51. Ibid, p. 46.

  52. Ibid, p. 46.

  53. Ibid, p. 43.

  54. Ibid, p. 69.

  55. Section 82 of the Penal Code.

  56. Article 37 and 40 of the CRC.

  57. Ibid, p. 170.

  58. Ibid, p. 152.

  59. Section 2(1) of the CPC defines it as an offence in which a police officer may arrest without warrant. Generally, it refers to offence which is punishable with less than 3 years of imprisonment.

  60. § 6 of the Austria Juvenile Court Act.

  61. § 45 (1) of the Germany Juvenile Justice Act.

  62. Section 6(1) of the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act.

References

  • Abdul Rahim, A. (2012). Jenayah Kanak-Kanak dan Undang-undang Malaysia (pp. 1–309). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backstrom, J. C., & Walker, G. L. (2006). The role of the prosecutor in juvenile justice: advocacy in the courtroom and leadership in the community. William Mitchell Law Review, 32, 963–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, N. (2003). Diversion, conferencing, and extrajudicial measures for adolescent offenders. Alberta Law Review, 40(4), 991–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, N., Snyder, H. N., & Paetsch, J. (Eds.). (2002). Juvenile justice systems: an international comparison of problems and solutions (pp. 1–270). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brakel, S. J. (1972). Diversion from the criminal process: informal discretion, motivation, and formalization. Denver Law Journal, 48, 211–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusuki, F. N. (2009). The UN convention on the rights of the child and the administration of juvenile justice: an examination of the legal framework in Malaysia. Asia Law Quarterly, 1(1), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. (2008). Diversion. In B. Goldson (Ed.), Dictionary of youth justice. Devon: Willan Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/willanyouthj/diversion/0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. M. (1983). Court reform on trial: why simple solutions fail (pp. 1–251). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld, B. C. (1999). The transformation of the juvenile court—part II: race and the “crack down” on youth crime. Minnesota Law Review, 84, 327–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Z. K., Sullivan, C. J., Veysey, B. M., & Grillo, M. (2007). Diverting multi-problem youth from juvenile justice: investigating the importance of community influence on placement and recidivism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamzah, W. A., & Bulan, R. (2007). An introduction to the Malaysian legal system (pp. 1–237). Selangor: Oxford Fajar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, H., & Daly, K. (2004). Conferencing and re-offending in Queensland. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(2), 167–191. McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007), above, n. 80, 318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K., Sevin Goldstein, N. E., & Redding, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). Juvenile delinquency: prevention, assessment, and intervention (pp. 1–368). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillsman, S. T. (1982). Pretrial diversion of youthful adults: a decade of reform and research. The Justice System Journal, 7, 361–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., & Decker, S. H. (Eds.). (2006). International handbook of juvenile justice. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., & Dunkel, F. (Eds.). (2009). Reforming juvenile justice (pp. 1–259). London, New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koshy, S. (2008). Case for restorative justice. Retrieved from The Malaysian Bar: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/case_for_restorative_justice.html on 26th March 2015.

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147. doi:10.1080/15564880802612573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, T. W., Maxwell, G. M., & Wong, D. S. W. (2006). Diversion from youth courts in five Asia Pacific jurisdictions: welfare or restorative solutions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclure, R., Campbell, K., & Dufresne, M. (2003). Young offender diversion in Canada: tensions and contradictions of social policy appropriation. Policy Studies, 24(2), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). Youth justice?: the impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European Journal of Criminology, 4(3), 315–345. doi:10.1177/1477370807077186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min Aun, W. (2005). The Malaysian legal system (pp. 1–454). Selangor: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohd Awal, N. A. (2009). Hak Kanak-Kanak di Malaysia: Ke Arah Mana? Malaysian Law Journal, 2, lxxxviii.

  • Mohd Yusof, J. Z., & Thambapillay, S. (2012). The role of the Court for Children in dealing with children involved in crime. The Law Review, 1, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S., Rastegari, B., & Nordin, R. (2013). Improving the legal protection of child in conflict with the Law: reintegration and rehabilitation into society. Malaysian Current Law Journal, 1, ix.

  • Mustaffa, A., & Kamaliah, S. (2010). Evidence by child in criminal proceedings in Malaysian courts: a study on post ratification of convention of rights of child. Malaysian Current Law Journal, 6, i.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayagam, J. (2012). Strengths and weaknesses of the protection mechanism and support system for reintegration of children in conflict with the Law. Malaysian Journal on Human Right, 6, 60–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polk, K. (1989). Juvenile diversion: a look at the record. Crime & Delinquency, 30(4), 648–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P. (2002). Community penalties: probation, punishment and “what works”. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (3rd ed., pp. 1168–1205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SUHAKAM, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Annual Report 2014, Kuala Lumpur, pp 1–232.

  • SUHAKAM, Report of the Forum on Malaysia’s Reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2008, Kuala Lumpur. p 56.

  • The Star. (2011). Shahrizat Jalil: Taskforce to look into restorative justice system. Retrieved from The Star: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/22/nation/20111022134537&sec=nation on 27th March 2015.

  • UNICEF. (2013). The Malaysian juvenile justice system: a study of mechanisms for handling children in conflict with the law, Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved from www.unicef.org/malaysia on 2nd January 2015.

  • Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013a). The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: a meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 497–518. doi:10.1177/0093854812451089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013b). Diverting our attention to what works: evaluating the effectiveness of a youth diversion program. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 11(4), 313–331. doi:10.1177/1541204012473132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterdyk, J. A. (Ed.). (2015). Juvenile justice: international perspectives, models and trends. New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Statutes and Conventions

  • Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975(ESCAR).

  • Germany Juvenile Justice Act 1923.

  • Greece Criminal Procedure Act.

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  • Malaysian Child Act 2001.

  • Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code.

  • Malaysian Juvenile Court Act 1947.

  • Malaysian Penal Code.

  • New Zealand, the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.

  • United Kingdom Crime and Public Disorder Act of 1998.

  • United Nation Convention on the Right of Children (The CRC), adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989.

  • United Nation Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990.

  • United Nation Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (The Havana Rules), adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990.

  • United Nation Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), adopted by the United Nation General Assembly resolution 45/110 of 14 December 1990.

  • United Nation Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), adopted by the United Nation General Assembly Resolution 40/33, 29 November 1985.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Accounting & International Relations, Sultan Zainal Abidin University, Gong Badak Campus, 21300, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia

    Aminuddin Mustaffa

Authors
  1. Aminuddin Mustaffa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aminuddin Mustaffa.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mustaffa, A. Diversion Under Malaysian Juvenile Justice System: a Case of Too Little Too Late?. Asian Criminology 11, 135–153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-015-9228-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-015-9228-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation