Mere hours after escaping Hurricane Irene, I flew into the eye of the Trinidad storm, involving the 14-year-old and her infamous video. But out of evil comes good, so the fallout from the video points to the need for a juvenile justice policy in keeping with international standards. Such a policy would require an approach which recognises the perpetrator as a child and thus any action contemplated or taken must be in the child's best interests. It would uphold the belief that rehabilitation, not retribution, must be the foremost guiding principle in any reaction or disposition contemplated, recommended or taken with regard to her misguided actions, and that deterrence of others should not be the motivating factor in dealing with the child's misdeeds.
Such a policy would have, as its key component, individualised justice, so that, before any official pronouncement or action, the circumstances of the particular child would be investigated by qualified and trained professionals to ensure an appropriate response. It would provide an opportunity for the child to be heard, require a prompt resolution, have a variety of dispositions to deal with the particular circumstances of the child, include prevention strategies and show awareness that referral to the police and judicial proceedings must be a last resort. Such a policy would recognise that holding parents to account, without evidence of their culpability, fails to take cognisance of the powerful stimulus to teenage misbehaviour of peer pressure and ranking, which frequently undermine parental authority and defeat parental best efforts.
Holding parents responsible disregards the impact on the child of negative influences which may come from other important socialising agencies, such as the school, the community and, especially, the media, and the growing incidence of mental illness in children. Social science studies have shown that punishing parents for their children's misdeeds, instead of providing parents with the help that they may so desperately need, eg counselling, parental training programmes, or social welfare, often results in child abuse and creates further problems. Since stigmatisation retards or impedes rehabilitation and reintegration, the policy should also impose effective sanctions on the media for violating the child's right to privacy.
A proper juvenile justice policy would take on board an understanding of the maturation process and the fact that a child's brain is still developing and, consequently, impulse control is weak and consequences of misbehaviour are frequently not considered. Yet, it is necessary to impress upon the child a sense of responsibility and respect for the rights of others. We need, therefore, to undertake an assessment of the child, conduct a social inquiry and provide guidance, counselling and, if needed, treatment, rather than instil fear and create situations of intimidation, even if, inadvertently. The policy should dictate that all stakeholders in juvenile justice, including parliamentarians, judges, magistrates, lawyers (whether prosecutors, defence counsel, law reformers, draftsmen, law lecturers), probation officers, other social workers, psychologists, staff in detention centres and children's homes, medical personnel, teachers and the media must be trained in the international standards and norms in juvenile justice.
This is a mandate repeatedly imposed on us by the UN Child Rights Committee and continuously ignored. Such a policy must also be informed by research on best practices from countries as New Zealand and Scotland, and should ignore some of the ill-advised law reforms in England, which have been roundly criticised by the committee. Finally, such a policy and the laws and programmes that must follow would be underpinned by the knowledge that history abounds with people who, as children, made serious mistakes, and with the right intervention grew out of wrong-doing to perform constructive roles in society.
Hazel Thompson-Ahye
Child rights advocate
