Diversion, Rights and Social Justice
| Date | 01 April 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225420902845 |
| Published date | 01 April 2021 |
| Author | Roger Smith |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420902845
Youth Justice
2021, Vol. 21(1) 18 –32
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1473225420902845
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Diversion, Rights and
Social Justice
Roger Smith
Abstract
This article draws on historical understandings and contemporary models of diversion in order to develop
a critical framework and agenda for progressive practice. The argument essentially revolves around the
contention that typically diversionary interventions have been constrained by the contextual and ideological
frames within which they operate. They have in some cases been highly successful in reducing the numbers
of young people being drawn into the formal criminal justice system; however, this has largely been achieved
pragmatically, by way of an accommodation with the prevailing logic of penal practices. Young people have
been diverted at least partly because they have been ascribed a lesser level of responsibility for their actions,
whether by virtue of age or other factors to which their delinquent behaviour is attributed. This ultimately
sets limits to diversion, on the one hand, and also offers additional legitimacy to the further criminalisation
of those who are not successfully ‘diverted’, on the other. By contrast, the article concludes that a ‘social
justice’ model of diversion must ground its arguments in principles of children’s rights and the values of
inclusion and anti-oppressive practice.
Keywords
advocacy, children first, diversion, offender management, rights, targeted intervention
Introduction: Diversion and Progressive Practice
Juvenile (or youth) diversion may not seem intuitively to be the obvious place to start
from when developing arguments for more progressive forms of practice in dealing with
young people identified as offenders. The typical field of operation for diversionary
schemes or decision-making processes lies at the entry point to the justice system, and, as
conventionally practised, its remit tends to be restricted to relatively minor, uncontrover-
sial and uncomplicated matters, such as shop theft or graffiti, perhaps. It apparently has
little purchase on what happens subsequently, notably for those who are not diverted and
become the subjects of more intrusive and punitive impositions by criminal justice agen-
cies and the judicial apparatus. This is not entirely the case, of course, since the ‘diver-
sionary impulse’ can be brought to bear in these contexts as well, in pursuing bail decisions,
Corresponding author:
Roger Smith, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3HN, UK.
Email: roger.smith@durham.ac.uk
902845YJJ0010.1177/1473225420902845Youth JusticeSmith
research-article2020
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial