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

Conclusion

In its White Paper on Corrections in South Africa, the Department of Correctional Services is adamant that young children under the age of 14 years have no place in correctional facilities. Diversion and other alternative sentences and detention facilities should first be considered in the case of young offenders, before they are referred to correctional centers (White Paper 2004:79).

Authors like Larry Siegel and Joseph Senna (1988:442) are convinced that diversion is apparently one of the most popular ways of juvenile justice reform. Juvenile diversion has the following advantages:

1. 
   It is an indispensable ingredient of an efficient juvenile justice system, because it takes the edge off in terms of caseloads;
   
2. 
   It is a more flexible institution that is capable of dealing with inadequate formal juvenile justice system treatment;
   
3. 
   It may assist legislators and other government authorities in reallocating resources to programmes that are more successful in the treatment of juvenile offenders.
   
4. 
   It amounts to low cost treatment of juvenile offenders that would otherwise be a more expensive venture in the case of institutionalization and
   
5. 
   It assists juveniles in avoiding the stigma of being labeled a delinquent, believed to contribute to developing a delinquent career.
   

Diversion programmes have been designed to offer juvenile offenders who have committed non-serious offences the opportunity of being ‘removed’ from the formal juvenile justice system with its retributive character, in an attempt to provide them with non-punitive treatment, and avoid them of being stigmatised as ‘juvenile criminals’.

Although not a ‘cure-all’ for various forms of juvenile delinquency, diversion at least provides an alternative to formal and official processing of young offenders that could have otherwise been dumped in a justice system that vigorously pursues retribution as its chief aim in sentencing. Diverting young offenders away from that formal system would help the official system to focus its attention and energy more effectively and efficiently on more serious law violators, while leaving ample room for treating and rehabilitating the needy youth who deserve to be given a second chance (Siegel & Senna 1988: 445).
Although the current study is exploratory in nature and somewhat limited in scope, it nevertheless, points to the fact that the last word on juvenile diversion has not been spoken yet. In-depth research into juvenile diversion at national level should be undertaken to evaluate the success or failure rate of this source of juvenile offender treatment as an alternative to imprisonment.