Marginalized Knowledge: An Agenda for Indigenous Knowledge Development and Integration with Other Forms of Knowledge

Introduction

Juvenile diversion is not a new idea or concept. It is perhaps just another ‘label’ attached to a practice that has been in use for centuries. For instance in 1967, the President Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice evaluated the status of the criminal justice system in the United States and made recommendations to improve different components. This happened at a stage when diversion was advocated as an alternative for dealing with youth problems (Whitehead and Lab 1990:306) Diversion is dependent upon decisions taken by juvenile justice practitioners. The rehabilitative value of diversion resides in efforts and actions directed at leading or reintegrating the juvenile offender back into the community with intervention and assistance by informal social, non-justice institutions (Simonsen & Gordon 1982:388).

Juvenile crime has captured the attention of many institutions and practitioners of different professions like the Police, Courts, Corrections, Social Welfare, Education and non-government organizations, inter alia the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO)
The handling and treatment of the juvenile offender remains a considerable problem to governments around the world, and South Africa is no exception. In the past, thousands of young people have awaited trial in prisons and police cells in South Africa. According to the paper presented by Allsop and Thumbaro of South Africa’s National Association of Child Care Workers (NACCW) in August 2002 in New York, in April 2002 there were 2334 children awaiting trial in South African prisons Often, their parents or guardians were not aware about their whereabouts and when they got into trouble through the commission of juvenile crime, they seldom had legal representation in court. Many have not even experienced the assistance of a probation officer who had to render visitation and locate the parent or guardian of the juvenile. In the pre-democratic era, retribution in the form of imprisonment and whipping were standard sentences handed down by South African courts to juveniles found guilty of having committed crime. According to Midgley (1975:107) 57% of those convicted were whipped. During the middle to late 1970s and 1980s hundreds of young people were detained during the state’s emergency ruling, causing a national and international outcry. According to the proposal for policy change young people who entered the criminal justice system were not always treated humanely. In fact, until democracy, there was no acknowledgement of children’s rights of those in detention (Juvenile Justice for South Africa 1994:3).
The Department of Correctional Services generally regards awaiting-trial detainees as persons with a unique status, because they are being protected by a set of rights in terms of Sections 2(1) and 35(1)-(4) of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996). For instance, awaiting-trial detainees, especially first offenders that have committed non-serious offences are, in terms of the responsibilities of the Integrated Justice System, to be detained separately from sentenced offenders (White Paper on Corrections, 2004: 57-60). Following international trends, the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) clearly stipulates that:” (a) children under the age of 14 years have the right not to be detained at all (except as a last resort) and, if detained (b) then only for the shortest possible span of time, (c) not to be detained together with other detainees over the age of 18 years, (d) to be treated in manner and detained under conditions consistent with their age, and (e) to be granted the opportunity of legal representation at the state’s expense. Instead of detaining children, alternative sentences and diversion efforts should be considered “(White Paper on Corrections 2004:79-80).
NICRO was established on 6 September 1910 as a South African Prisoner’s Aid Association. In 1970, the name of this Association was changed to the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders. In 1992, after joining ‘Justice for the children; no child should be caged’ campaign with other non-government organizations (NGOs): , NICRO introduced diversion programmes for young offenders with the explicit aim of channeling (diverting) them away from the juvenile justice system into programmes that would make them accountable for their actions (NICRO News nd.). In 1997, the word ‘Rehabilitation’ was replaced with ‘Reintegration’ (NICRO Newsletter: nd.). Diversion represents an attempt by governments to find alternative ways of dealing with problem youth (juvenile delinquents) outside the formal criminal justice system (Whitehead & Lab 1990:305).