Children and the Justice System in Indonesia

Despite the title of this post, it is not some academic expose on juvenile justice. It is a commentary on a particular case that is currently before the Tangerang District Court in Indonesia. It involves children and an alleged gambling session.

The relevant law in Indonesia is Law No. 3 of 1997 on Juvenile Justice. The law states that a juvenile that is subject to the provisions of the law is any child between the ages of eight and eighteen. However, where children are found to have committed an offense that is subject to the provisions of this law and they are under the age of eight, then the child may still be subject to some form of action. This action will not include a court appearance. However, it might include removal from the home and placement with child services.

However, once the child has reached an age of eight then they can be brought before a court of law and tried for their alleged offenses. The trial is to be closed and the identities of the children are to be protected. Interestingly, the above photo is from the hearing and it shows the children wearing masks in order to protect their identity. For me, though, a closed hearing must mean just that, it is closed to all bar the prosecution; the defense counsel, the judges and associated court staff, and the child or children's immediate families. This is seemingly not the way it has been done to date in this case.

However, the lack of real protection of the children's identities is hardly surprising. Having lived in Indonesia and watched a good deal of crime reporting on television or reading about crime in the paper, it is clear that a very poor job is done with respect to "really" protecting the identities of children in criminal matters. I am certainly not in favor of naming and shaming of minor children. On a slightly different note, I also believe that children who have been victim of crime have an absolute right to have their identities protected.

In a case that is currently before the Tangerang District Court that involves the prosecution of ten children ranging in ages from eight to eleven. These children were allegedly caught gambling. Their game of choice was guessing the value of a coin at IDR 1000 a game. This is hardly big stakes gambling, and you would think that the police, public prosecutors, and the courts have bigger fish to fry in the crime stakes than these ten children. Then again, maybe not.

The children were caught in the middle of their high-stakes game within the surrounds of the Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in June. Sadly, the reason they were there was because they were trying to make a few extra Rupiah shining shoes of much wealthier travellers on their way out of Jakarta or out of the country. The majority of these kids are regulars in primary school and would hardly classify as hardened criminals in the making.

In any event, the criminal prosecution of these children should have been a case of last resort. A slap on the wrist and a warning to their parents and guardians that this sort of thing is not on and if they get caught again then perhaps it is time for social or children's services to become involved. The idea that these ten children could end up in a juvenile detention facility for gambling less than one dollar is more wrong that the offense that they have allegedly committed.

Career Criminals In The Making

Here are some statistics that make you wonder about the parenting skills of some Australians. To be fair it might not be the parents per se, it might just be the case that these youngsters are beyond the control of parents who may feel like they have tried everything and still not managed to bring their children into some kind of respectable line.

NSW police are apprehending, on average, more than 50 children per week for sexual and other assaults, theft, armed robbery, drug dealing, and murder. What is even more scary in these statistics is that during the period from 1 January 2005 to 30 September 2007 some 7,724 offences were recorded by children under the age of 10. This is one of those moments where you close your eyes and go, "what?"

The statistics were obtained by News Ltd under a Freedom of Information request and show one murder by a 10-year-old, 1,109 assaults and 141 sexual assaults, including 31 by 8-year olds. At 8 years old I cannot even recall if I was thinking about girls let alone wanting to be involved in a sexual assault. I cannot even remembering wanting to assault anyone at that age. I mean the closest I might have come to an assault conviction could have been a punch up or two in high school. But most of the violence I was involved in was good wholesome fun on the rugby field and this was generally referred to as a crunching tackle.

Yet, the craziness continues as the statistics also highlight that there were 584 driving offences, of which 113 were by 8-year olds.

The question is what to do about this worsening juvenile crime wave as for those that are aged of 10 might get a Children's Court date which for first time offenders generally results in a slap on the wrist (this is the case for second and third time offenders as well depending on the offence).

However, for those under the age of 10 the current practice is to call in the parents, lecture the child on the evil of their ways and where this type of conduct will lead them and then release them back into the custody of their parents. Sometimes the Department of Community Services (DoCS) might become involved. Yet, DoCS are woefully under-funded and under-staffed as some of their more recent and public failings highlight.

Former Children's Court magistrate Barbara Holborow said, "I don't know whether it's because so many parents are working by necessity, loss of parents' rights, poor discipline at home or whatever, but something is wrong," ya think? no kidding!

Naming & Shaming

A recent report in New South Wales (that's in Australia for my international visitors not familiar with my history) by a State Parliamentary Committee has rejected calls for the naming and shaming of juvenile offenders. This is a good move!

The issue must revolve on whether there are any identifiable long-term benefits from naming and shaming juvenile offenders, and if there is not then why change the current practice of protecting the identities of offenders. The second issue that must be considered is whether there is any additional justice for the victims of crime in seeing the juvenile offender named and shamed.

Finally, perhaps we need to ask ourselves why we want to name and shame juvenile offenders? Is it to punish the offender or is it to embarrass the parents of the offender by highlighting that they must be bad parents and have done a poor job because the child has turned out to be a criminal? If it is to shame the parents then this is the wrong approach!

Some parents try really hard to be good parents and some times it just does not work out for them no matter how hard they try. Some parents may in fact just be bad parents in terms of they do not have the necessary parenting skills to be a good parent...perhaps more government money at parent training might be an option.

The general belief is that naming a child offender will increase the likelihood of re-offending. Nevertheless, this might need to be balanced against the vindication that victims of crime might feel in seeing the perpetrator of the crime against them named. However, it is worth noting that the use of victim conferencing has been successful as the format allows for victims to directly confront the perpetrator of that crime.

In any event this is an argument that is likely to rage on as juveniles continue to commit crimes from the petty to the serious. Yet, the current law prevents anyone under 18 years of age being identified.