Although nine participants were relieved and felt that they were given a second chance when they were referred to the programme, one participant in particular raised concerns about how he was arrested and the reason for his arrest. Among the nine who were relieved, one participant acknowledged that the police had been doing their job to protect the community. However, he felt that he had been wrongfully arrested because he had only been playing with a golf club and he had not intended to assault anyone. He explained that when the police arrived at the playground, there was no fight or violence and therefore no reason for the police to approach them. He questioned the legal aspect of how the police could arrest someone without any firm evidence. He stated: “I cannot blame them because they are doing their job; however, what I would like to ask them is how they can arrest someone without proof or finding out the information regarding the situation first” (Participant 9).
For the reason that he felt that he had been illegally arrested, this participant argued that he was not supposed to be referred to the programme in the first place. Not only did he complain about being referred to the programme, but he also highlighted the fact that he had been forced into admitting guilt so that he could avoid incarceration and be referred to the diversion programme instead. The following is how he expressed his innocence: “I do smoke dagga but I was not caught
with it. What I do not understand is that I was not alone, how come they only took me? Yet there was no dagga” (Participant 8).
Section 1 of the Child Justice Act defines diversion as “diverting a matter involving a child away from formal court procedures when there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the child”
(Bezuidenhout, 2013:177). Young offenders who meet the criteria for diversion are referred to crime prevention and developmental programmes (Sloth-Nielsen & Gallinetti, 2004:32). In order for a youth offender to be diverted, contact with the South African Police Service (SAPS) is the first point of the process. Therefore, the SAPS has a wide range of responsibilities. One such responsibility is to ensure a child’s appearance at a preliminary inquiry, mainly with an alternative to arrest as a last resort. For a child to be referred to a diversion programme, he or she has to meet the criteria for diversion as stipulated in the CJA. Section 52 of the Act stipulates that diversion should be considered if the child acknowledges responsibility. This implies that a child should not be influenced to acknowledge responsibility and the child’s and his or her parent should consent to diversion if the persecutor indicates that the matter may be diverted (Bezuidenhout, 2013).
However, the findings pertaining to Participant 8 seem to differ from the definitions and criteria for diversion as stipulated in Section 1 and Section 52 of the Child Justice (Act No.75 of 2008).
Some youth thus questioned the manner in which they had been arrested and one of them even complained that he should not have been referred to the programme because there was no evidence against him. Based on what they reported, it is evident that they might have admitted to having committed the crime without intending to do so, and thus they agreed to attend the programme in order to avoid going to a correctional centre. In terms of confirming to participate in the diversion programme, the child and the parent or guardian had to sign a consent form that allowed the youth
to attend group sessions. In doing this, NICRO abides by the provisions of the Child Justice Act and the participant agreed to this to avoid a criminal record.
5.9 Impact of the Programme on Acknowledgement of Accountability
This part of the analysis assesses whether the diversion programme served the function of holding these youth accountable for their behaviour; in other words, it examines whether the programme achieved the objectives of diversion.
Section 51 of the Child Justice Act stipulates the objectives of diversion, which have been discussed in Chapter two. The study explored whether the programme met the objectives of diversion as stipulated in the Act in terms of encouraging youth to accept accountability for their offending behaviour. During the interviews, the participants were asked what they had learnt about the programme and how the Youth Empowerment Scheme programme had assisted them regarding their behaviour. The participants gave various positive responses:
“I have learnt to be positive about myself and life and my marks have improved a lot as well”
(Participant 1).
“I have learnt to respect myself and other individuals. The programme assisted me a lot”
(Participant 2).
“I learned that I should not associate myself with wrong friends because they might influence me into doing wrong things” (Participant 3).
“I learnt respect, and now I teach others that smoking dagga is illegal” (Participant 4).
“Not to repeat the same mistakes and resist temptations” (Participant 7).
“The programme assisted me to respect other individuals and behave in a good manner”
(Participant 8).
“I learnt how to behave around people and what not to carry on the streets or anywhere else because you might get arrested for carrying a knife or a club” (Participant 9).
“I learnt to behave well and [what] the consequences of a criminal record [might be]” (Participant 10).
The above responses demonstrate that the participants took responsibility for their actions.
Furthermore, the programme assisted them to understand themselves and to relate to other people in a positive manner, and thus the above comments imply that the programme achieved the objectives of diversion. Chance (in Bezuidenhout, 2013; Steyn, 2005) explains that life skills programmes aim to enhance the quality of life and to prevent further offending behaviour.
Moreover, the achievement of appropriate life skills strengthens a sense of responsibility and accountability. Therefore, the findings of the study corroborate the principles of the differential association theory, which holds that learning criminal behaviour patterns is similar to learning all other patterns (Siegel, 2011). This implies that when youth offenders are diverted away from formal court procedures to diversion programmes, the likelihood of learning further criminal behaviour is reduced.