Delinquency and Juvenile Justice Systems in the Non-Western World

Edited by Paul C. Friday and Xin Ren
Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press, 2006

This book focuses on juvenile justice systems in selected non-Western countries that follow common law, civil, Islamic, and Asian legal traditions and philosophies. The chapters examine the historical, cultural, and contemporary factors underpinning each country’s formal and informal justice systems. The introduction (Ren and Friday) presents the different legal traditions—with a focus on unique religious and philosophical orientations—and how those traditions shape both patterns of delinquency and juvenile justice systems. Chapter 2 (Vincentnathan) presents the historical origins and recent overhaul (2002) of juvenile justice in India, including an important discussion of informal dispute settlements through panchayats (village courts). (The author, however, is incorrect in stating that Observations Homes, instead of Special Homes, house juveniles in conflict with the law.) Chapter 3 (Ebbe) presents the tripartite juvenile justice in Nigeria (based on customary practices, Islamic Shari’a law, and English common law), emphasizing the importance of family and community elders in handling juvenile misbehaviors. The author illustrates that although children are expected to assume domestic responsibilities at an early age, they are “presumed to be ignorant of deviant behavior.” Families are therefore responsible for their children’s misbehavior.

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 examine juvenile justice systems that follow civil legal tradition: Macao, Philippines, South Africa, and Turkey. Macao (Chan), unlike other non-Western countries, has high rates of group delinquency. As a result, the formal system adopted corrective measures, including education orders and open-institutional orders where juveniles can work or study outside the institution. The chapter on the Philippines (Shoemaker) highlights how cultural values and customary practices shaped the barangay system of conciliation and mediation, which relies on the concept of shame, maintenance of good interpersonal relationships, and reciprocity. Although the formal child-justice system in South Africa (Skelton and Potgieter) is undergoing transformation, the informal system has strong roots in customary law. For example, in traditional, rural communities, family councils play a primary role in settling disputes. In Turkey (Atasoy, Baskan, and Ziyalar) offending children and victimized children are treated similarly for purposes of intervention. Due to past incidents of police abuse of authority, only prosecutors and judges are authorized to take statements from juveniles.

Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the juvenile justice systems of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, respectively. Although the Shari’a law of Saudi Arabia guarantees “a decent life for delinquent and disabled children,” the author (Gilani) criticizes gender disparity in treatment of juveniles and the lack of implementation of United Nations’s Convention on the Rights of the Children. Pakistan (Burfat and Ahmed) has also failed to bring the juvenile justice system into agreement with the UN Convention: The authors comment on “flagrant violations” in the treatment of children in conflict with law.

Chapters 10, 11, and 12 discuss countries incorporating Asian philosophies. In China (Yisheng and Yijun), the government has taken new approaches to solve juvenile delinquency, including grassroots organizations and deferred prosecutions and judgments. The Japanese system (Elrod and Yokoyama) emphasizes a participatory approach in the prevention of delinquency using social institutions and volunteers. The chapter on Thailand (Narkvichetr) discusses the reasons for the increase in drug and gang-related juvenile crimes, which prompted the implementation of a restorative justice program, compulsory treatment of drug addicts, and child-sensitive procedures.

Despite some grammatical errors and a dull introductory chapter, the book is a valuable resource for students, scholars, and practitioners as it provides examples of both common and unique aspects of juvenile justice in non-Western countries. Moreover, it shows how countries are relying on informal social control mechanisms while maintaining a “child-friendly” formal system.