MODELS OF

SYSTEM
MODELS OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM
TYPOLOGY OF YOUTH JUSTICE
MODELS
 WELFARE MODEL
PHILIOSOPHICAL ASSUPMTIONS INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND PROCESSES
ARRANGEMENTS

 Determinist : crime is  Socialized welfare  Pre- Delinquent

“caused”  interventions
 Paternalistic and  Tribunal based on  Informal procedures
protectionist parens patriae  ‘one-track adjudication’
 Focus on “needs” not  Unfettered discretion
“deeds”  Unified care/Criminal  Social science expertise
 Child as dependent jurisdiction  Use of diagnostic
 Help/treatment of custody
education , not  Indeterminate flexible
punishment orders
 JUSTICE MODEL
PHILIOSOPHICAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
ASSUPMTIONS ARRANGEMENTS PROCESSES
 ‘Two-track
 “Free will and adjudication
 Modified criminal
‘accountability  Procedural
court’
safeguards in court
 Child as responsible
agent
 Distinct  Procedural formality
care/criminal  Determinate
 Focus on “needs”
not “deeds” jurisdiction sentencing
 Young offender as  Proportionality in
“bearer of rights” punishment
 Treat like cases alike
 MINIMUM INTERVENTION MODEL
PHILIOSOPHICAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
ASSUPMTIONS ARRANGEMENTS PROCESSES
 ‘Labelling  ‘gate keeping  Decriminalization
perspective mechanism’  Diversion from
prosecution
 Dangers of  Alternative to
Secondary custody  System
management
deviance
approach
 Avoidance of net  Targeting monitoring
widening
 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
PHILIOSOPHICAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
ASSUPMTIONS ARRANGEMENTS PROCESSES
 ‘diversion from
 “Focus on restoration  Family group courts combined
for victims with reparation
conference
 Focus on  Decarceration
 Victim/offender
reintegration(and
mediation  Flexible/innovative
accountability) of
outcomes
offenders  Changes in role of
 Empowerrment of youth in court
 Need for cultural
parties sensitivity
 Unified
 New rule for state; care/criminal
‘subsidiarity’ jurisdiction
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
PHILIOSOPHICAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
ASSUPMTIONS ARRANGEMENTS PROCESSES
 early intervention’
 Primacy of offending  Pre-delinquent
prevention
 Reform of court
intervention
 ‘Law and order’
process
ideology
 Relaxation of age
 Closer link with limits
 Resposibilization of adults courts
offenders and their  ‘zero tolerance’
parents  New civil forms of  Reparation by
 Young offender as punishments offenders
“bearer of
responsibilities&and
 Focus on
obligations” persistence
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
PHILIOSOPHICAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
ASSUPMTIONS ARRANGEMENTS PROCESSES
 ‘progressive
 Offender sentencing’
 Reform of court
accountability  Quasi-mandatory
process
towards victims and sentences
community  Closer link with  ‘fast –tracking’
 Efficiency & adults courts
 System
effectiveness Focus  New civil forms of management
on community
punishments approach
safety
 Justice Model corrections
 This is based on the concept that the criminal justice
system should not be concerned with offender
rehabilitation but should limit itself to the fair
administration of punishment appropriate to the
severity of the crime committed.
 Welfare Model
 It adopts a positivistic approach that is based on
the assumption that juvenile wrong doing is the
product of social or environmental factors for
which the young person can’t be held
individually responsible
 Welfare Model
 The primary goal of the youth justice system is to
provide appropriate help or treatment for offenders,
rather than punishment. Consequently, the primary
emphasis is on the ‘ needs’ and ‘best interest’ of the
child rather than ‘deeds’ they may have committed.
 MINIMUM INTERVENTION MODEL
 The philosophy that underpins the minimum
intervention model is derived in part from
criminological ‘labelling theory’, which suggest
that all official forms of processing young offenders
are potentially harmful to them since they label and
stigmatize the as criminals.
 MINIMUM INTERVENTION MODEL
 This makes it more, rather than less, difficult
for them to desist from crime in future since it
may make it harder for them to engage in
lawful activities , for example by rendering
them unemployable .
 MINIMUM INTERVENTION MODEL
 Indeed’ it may also increase the risk of them
participating in illicit activities , for example by
confining them in custodial institutions where
they can meet other offenders , learn from the
and be drawn into criminal subcultures.
 MINIMUM INTERVENTION MODEL
 Placement in custodial institutions could for this
reason constitutes the most harmful and counter-
productive of all official interventions . In short , this
approach is characterized by a concern that official
responses to crime may frequently promote
‘secondary deviance ‘ on the part of young offenders,
 MINIMUM INTERVENTION MODEL
 There by fueling the ‘deviancy amplification
spiral’ that they are ostensibly designed to
prevent.
 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
 The restorative justice model i8s based on radically
different set of assumptions about the concept of
crime itself ,the relationship between offenders ,
victims , citizens and the state , and also about the
most appropriate ways of responding to crime.
 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
 Whereas traditional criminal justice theorist
have portrayed crime first and foremost as an
offence against the state, the restorative justice
model places particular emphasis on the harm
that is done to the victim, whose interest were
 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
 for many years neglected by mainstream criminal
justice agencies and policy- makers alike.
Traditional approaches have tented to place the
responsibility for dealing with crime firmly in the
hands of state –appointed agencies, who are
 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
 Expected to deal with offenders( and almost
exclusively with offenders ) in accordance with ‘the
public interest’. In marked contrast, the restorative
justice model advocates a policy based on involving
those who are most directly affected by a particular
 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
 offense –victims, offenders and their
communities of care- in decisions about how it
should be resolve.
 Balance and Restorative justice
 is a conceptual framework, based on specific values and
principles, that defines this mission of juvenile justice and
guides the activities employed to translate these values and
this mission into practice. Restorative justice provides an
alternative to the punishment and offender rehabilitation
approaches to delinquency, although it does not eliminate
the appropriate use of confinement and treatment.
 Balance and Restorative justice
 Rather than punishment and treatment being the first
response, however, these activities are among many that
may be used in balanced and restorative justice.
 Principles of Balance and Restorative Justice
(Pranis,1998)
 1. Crime is injury
2. Crime hurts victims, communities, and juvenile offenders and
creates an obligation to make things right.
3. All parties should be a part of the response to the crime, including
the victim if he or she wishes, the community and the juvenile
offender.
4. The victim’s perspective is central to deciding how to repair the
harm caused by the crime.
5. Accountability for the juvenile offender means accepting
responsibility and acting to repair the harm done.
 Principles of Balance and Restorative
Justice (Pranis,1998)
 6. The community is responsible for the well-being of all its members,
including both victims and offenders.
7. All human beings have dignity and worth.
8. Restoration or repairing the harm and rebuilding relationships in the
community is the primary goal of juvenile justice.
 Principles of Balance and Restorative
Justice (Pranis,1998)
 9. Results are measured by how much repair was done rather than by
how much punishment was inflicted.
10. Crime control cannot be achieved without active involvement of the
community.
11. The juvenile justice process is respectful of different cultures and
backgrounds- whether racial, ethnic, geographic, religious, economic,
age, abilities, family, status, sexual orientation, or other and all are
given equal protection and due process.
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
 Resembles the justice model in as much as both
adopt an uncompromisingly punishment-oriented
approach, but in other respect they are very different.
Whereas the justice approach views the offender as a
bearer of rights and therefore entitled to protection
against excessive punitive interventions on the part
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
 of the state- the neo- correctionalist approach is
more likely to emphasize the responsibility that
young offenders, and even their parents, owed
towards others, including the victim, the
community and the state.
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
 Under this model , the prevention of offending
by young people is accorded primacy, and all
other aims are subordinated to it. For example,
reparation- for victims and also the wider
community- is favored chiefly insofar as it
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
 may contribute to a reduction in reoffending rates
rather than something to which recipients should
be entitled as of right. It aims to improve the
efficiency of the youth justice system, for example
by coordinating the activities of the
 NEO-CORRECTIONALIST MODEL
 Various criminal justice agencies, speeding up
the criminal justice process and increasing
effectiveness of the various interventions that
are directed at young offenders.
 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
SYSTEM
 A system dealing with children in conflict with the
law , which provides child a-appropriate
proceedings, including programs and services for
prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration
and after care to ensure their normal growth and
development.
 The tittle of Republict Act 9344 is hereby
amended to read as follows: An act establishing
a comprehensive juvenile justice and welfare
sytrem , creating the juvenile justice and
welfare council under the department of social
welfare and development , appropriating funds
therefore, and for other purposes”.
 Republic Act No. 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006’’ defines the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System as a system
dealing with children at risk and children in conflict with the law,
which provides child-appropriate proceedings, including programs
and services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration
and aftercare to ensure their normal growth and development.
 R.A No. 9344 are the diversion and intervention
programmes. During the diversion process, the responsibility
and treatment of CICL will be determined on the basis of
his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or
educational background without resorting to formal court
proceedings.
 Instead of the word using “juvenile”, Philippine
laws made use of the word “child”. As defined in
R.A No. 9344, “Child’’ is a person under the age of
eighteen (18) years. While “Child at Risk’’ refers to a child
who is vulnerable to end and
at he risk of
committing criminal offenses because of
personal, family and social circumstances.
Some of the examples