KEY ISSUES ON TREATMENT, REHABILITATION AND
SOCIAL REINTEGRATION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS AS
IDENTIFIED IN AN RWI STUDY IN THE ASEAN COUNTRIES
Christian Ranheim*I.

INTRODUCTION

Combined, the 10 member states of the Association of South East Asian nations(ASEAN) comprise 3.3% of this planets entire land area. Its citizens, however, make up
almost 10% of humanity. Home to more than 600 million people — more than 100 million
more than the EU — it is a young population. Almost 30% are between 5 and 19 years old.
The combined high number of youth and a relatively high percentage of youth unemployment
in the region have by many been seen as a formula for increased unrest, violence and juvenilecrime. 1
After having worked with juvenile justice related capacity building in Asia for severalyears, the Raoul Wallenberg Institute for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law wanted todelve deeper into the effects of the youth bulge in ASEAN member states thus contributing tothe limited regional based juvenile justice research. Some of the questions we had were:Is there really a sharp increase in juvenile delinquency in ASEAN countries as reported bynews media? How do the governments respond to juvenile delinquency? Is juvenile crime aticking bomb towards social unrest and instability in South East Asia? How are the juveniles
in conflict with the law treated and rehabilitated? Are there common trends in the region?
Through commissioning of a baseline report on the state of juvenile justice in ASEAN
countries, we wanted to find the answer to some of these questions. The study is freshly
printed, and I am happy to be able to present the results of the study for the first time heretoday.
The report has been drafted by 10 independent experts with responsibility for each of theASEAN member states. Thus, it is pertinent to point out that this is neither an official
ASEAN report nor a report drafted or endorsed by any member state. Relevant ASEAN
bodies and state representatives have, however, been consulted and have been supportive ofour research.
Each researcher drafted a narrative report and collected statistics loosely based upon theUNICEF and UNODC Juvenile Justice Indicators. 2*Head, Indonesia Office, Jakarta, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI).
ILO: Global Employment Trends for Youth 2013: A generation at risk
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_212423.pdf
2
www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Manual_for_the_Measurement_of_Juvenile_Justice_Indicators.
1- 148 -II. FINDINGSThis now brings us to the findings of the report, and I would like to highlight five key
conclusions made.
A. What Are the Facts?
Nearly all researchers conducting the country studies for this report stated that it had
been difficult to obtain reliable and up-to-date statistical data on the situation of children in
conflict with the law. Furthermore, there is no set list of indicators applied for juvenile justicereporting within ASEAN, which makes it difficult to compare figures across the region.
Access to data and streamlining of indicators clearly need to improve to ensure transparency
and possibilities for future research.
B. Juveniles in the Region Are Mostly Law Abiding
The fear of an increasing number of juveniles in conflict with the law in ASEAN
countries has sparked concerns throughout the region. Until today, it has been difficult toverify whether the concerns are justified. Our study confirms that crime is on the rise. The
number of juveniles brought into formal contact with the criminal justice system, however,remains surprisingly low: we estimate that approximately 70 000 juveniles are formallycharged with an offence each year in ASEAN member states. Comparatively, this number is
far lower than, for example, the USA — in which numbers from 2010 show that a staggering
1,4 million children were charged annually. 3 There is a lack of complete EU statistics, but ina study conducted by the European Commission in 2014, 8 out of the 28 member states
reported 134 000 children charged with a criminal offence. 4
When assessing the figure, it is, however, important to keep in mind that juvenile crime
traditionally is heavily underreported. 5 Cases of minor crime are often dealt with locally,
which may be even more common in Asia where many tend to live in tightly knit
communities where crimes are more likely to be resolved without contact with the formal
criminal justice system.
C. Those Who Are Not Law Abiding Mostly Commit Less Serious Crimes
In line with international research, crimes committed by youth in the ASEAN region aremostly within the category of theft. The highest percentage we recorded was in thePhilippines with 68% and Singapore with 63%. After theft, figures of other crimes vary quiteconsiderably. It does, however, seem common that violent property crime and drug related
crimes are high on the statistics. In particular Thailand reports extremely high percentages ofdrug related crimes (45.51%).
For those countries that provide gender relevant statistics, it is obvious that maledelinquency is much higher than female. The Indonesian juvenile prison population inJanuary 2015 consisted of 2% females, which we believe is indicative also for other countries.

3In comparison, the population of the USA is only half that of ASEAN member states. “Juvenile Offenders andVictims: 2014 National Report”, National Center for Juvenile Justice p.151.
4“Summary of contextual overviews on children’s involvement in criminal judicial proceedings in the 28
Member States of the European Union”, European Commission 2014, p.4. The report summary finds that in 8
out of the 28 members states of the EU alone, the number of children charged was 134,477.
5Finkelhor and Omrod “Factors in the Underreporting of Crimes Against Juveniles”, Child Maltreatment, SageJournals, August 2001 6: 219-229.

- 149 -D. The Legal Framework Is Improving — Implementation Is the New Challenge
The country reports indicate that all countries within the region have recently installed,
or are in the process of installing, a distinct legislative framework for juvenile justice. This iscompatible with international standards and a very positive development.
7 out of 10 states have legally recognised diversion procedures. The remaining 3 states
are in the process of drafting such a framework — some in cooperation with UNICEF.
The actual implementation of juvenile diversion appears to be a more complex issue.
Some of our researchers reported a very high application of either diversion or alternativemeasures. As an example, police in Brunei estimated that 90% of cases reported to the justicesystem are solved without a judicial proceeding. The Philippines reported that 39% of allreported cases were diverted, while Thailand, on the other hand, had a very low percentage ofuse of official diversion.
Does the study specify how those going through diversion or alternative measures aretreated? Not in detail or in figures, although the narrative reports can give us some guidance.
A common observation is that diversion is not used to its fullest potential for several reasons:-

Lack of formal programs-

Lack of funding-

Lack of competence and knowledge-

Lack of facilities

Institutional arrangements for implementation of diversion differ throughout ASEAN.
While some countries apply traditionally based procedures such as mediation in village
councils, others maintain strict control over the mediation process.
If one looks at figures again, our study shows that while approximately 70 000 juveniles
are charged with a criminal offence annually, an estimated 16 000 children are deprived of
their liberty after having received a criminal sentence at any given time within the region.
Again, to our knowledge, this is the first time such figures have been presented for theASEAN region. In the USA, the figure of juveniles deprived of liberty was around 70 000
according to a report from 2010, while 21 out of 28 countries in the EU in 2012 reported that
8700 juveniles were detained. 6E. Rights Denied?
Juveniles in conflict with the law are especially vulnerable in facing a large, formal
justice system comprised of adults. International instruments thus recognise the importance ofproviding legal or other professional counsel to represent the interest of the child at all phasesof the proceedings. Disappointingly, this appears to be one of the weakest parts of thejuvenile justice systems in the region. Although most national laws afford some form of legal
representation, this is for several countries not implemented in practise. Some report that it isdue to the lack of lawyers. As examples, the Lao Bar Association had in 2013 around 150
6“Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report”, National Center for Juvenile Justice, p. 188,
“Summary of contextual overviews on children’s involvement in criminal judicial proceedings in the 28
Member States of the European Union”, European Commission 2014.

- 150 -members while Cambodia had around 800. While this may be amended by training ofparalegals or use of other professionals, our researchers reports that such programmes lackfunding and that representatives thus are either not available or do not fulfil the requiredcompetence to work with juveniles.
III. CONCLUSIONSASEAN countries are diverse in terms of population, geography, social development andculture. This is reflected in the findings of the report, and one should thus be careful whendrawing conclusions. Some trends do, however, appear general: On a positive note – all
ASEAN member states have, or will soon have, specialised legislation on juvenile justice.
Furthermore, the number of juveniles in conflict with the law in the region as a wholeremains remarkably low.
While most countries have regulations outlining diversion processes, these are notalways used to its fullest potential due to a number of factors, and prisons are still being used
to a much higher extent that required. The situation for detained children is not conducive tosecure full rehabilitation, and incarceration together with adults is still common in several
ASEAN countries.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
We believe that increased regional cooperation within ASEAN and bilaterally between
states would be imperative to strengthen standard setting and sharing of best practises. Themain recommendations of the RWI study are to:– Work towards a set of ASEAN Guidelines on the promotion and protection ofjuvenile justice that are compatible with the CRC and other international juvenile
justice standards;– Develop an ASEAN system for collecting and publicly reporting statistics onjuvenile justice based on recognised UNODC and UNICEF indicators;– Strengthen regional forums for juvenile justice in order to share best practices;– Support regional juvenile justice ‘think-tanks’ and strengthen cooperation onjuvenile justice related research and education, and– Create a regional monitoring and evaluation mechanism based on international
juvenile justice standards.

- 151 -