Authored By: Wong Yi Yan
Brickfields Asia College
Introduction
‘Has juvenile justice become the ‘unwanted child’ of international human rights peripheralised and unduly disregarded by the very states that have sworn to uphold it?’ [1]This penetrating question exposes a profound ‘punitiveness gap’ that has emerged between international rhetoric and localised practice despite the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) being the most widely ratified human rights instrument in history.[2] Since the 1970s, the rise of neo-liberal governance has dismantled traditional ‘penal welfarism’, replacing the logic of social support with market-driven concepts of individual responsibility and the ‘penalisation of poverty’.[3] This shift has ‘adulterated’ juvenile justice, lowering age thresholds for criminal responsibility and increasing reliance on custodial detention as a common tool rather than a mandated ‘last resort’.[4] Consequently, systems touted as ‘child-friendly’ often mask exclusionary and retributive practices that ignore the developmental vulnerabilities and markedly elevated mental health needs of youth who come into conflict with the law. [5]
This article argues that fostering a truly ‘child-friendly’ justice system requires navigating the contradictions of neo-liberal rationalities by realigning domestic policies with rights-based, therapeutic, and restorative frameworks.[6] The analysis first examines the global transition from welfare to ‘responsibilisation’, followed by a critical evaluation of the punitiveness gap across diverse jurisdictions,[7] before concluding with the institutional safeguards necessary to protect the most vulnerable members of society from a burgeoning culture of retribution.[8]
The International Legal Framework: The Global Promise
The modern quest for a ‘child-friendly’ justice system is anchored in a sophisticated architecture of international law designed to safeguard children from state mistreatment. This global promise is fundamentally rooted in UNCRC.[9] Particularly, Article 37 of the Convention specifically challenges punitive traditions by requiring that the arrest and detention of a minor be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.[10]
This foundational mandate is operationalised through a triad of specialised standards that define the parameters of youth governance. The Beijing Rules [11] establish the framework for a separate and specialised system, recognising that juvenile justice should be an integral part of national social justice rather than just a penal mechanism.[12] These rules promote diversion, for example, handling children without formal trials[13] and urge the establishment of specialised police cells to prevent further criminalisation.[14] Furthermore, they recommend that the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) be based on emotional and mental maturity rather than being fixed too low.[15]
Complementing these are the Riyadh Guidelines,[16] which focus on social-prevention strategies.[17] These guidelines emphasize that formal agencies of social control should only be used as a last resort[18] and explicitly forbid harsh or degrading correction in any setting.[19] Crucially, they advocate against criminalising children for minor ‘status offences’, including acts that are only crimes due to the individual’s age.[20] For youth who are incarcerated, the Havana Rules provide rigorous safeguards.[21] They mandate a minimum standard of care in development centres, require strict confidentiality of records to prevent lifelong stigma, and explicitly prohibit capital punishment or cruel treatment.[22]
Recent judicial developments underscore the role of the judiciary as the guardian of these norms.[23] The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has utilised the ‘living instrument’ doctrine to ensure rights remain responsive to shifting realities. In landmark judgments like H.F. and Others v. France and Fedotova v. Russia, the Court pushed for a robust application of human rights amidst political instability, navigating the tension between evolutionary interpretation and state legitimacy.[24] Additionally, in Klima Seniorinnen v. Switzerland, the Court demonstrated that protection of the vulnerable is a dynamic obligation, regardless of the politically divided landscape.[25]
Domestic courts have begun to echo this international consciousness by attempting to bridge the gap between global rhetoric and localised practice through a commitment to rights-informed welfarism.[26] In South Asian jurisprudence, the commitment to rights-informed welfarism is evident in The State v Oyshee Rahman.[27] In this instance, which involved the horrific murder of the offender’s parents, the High Court Division commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment by helding the offender’s ‘mental derailment’ as a critical mitigating factor.[28] The Court meticulously detailed her history of depression and psychiatric disorders, noting that both her paternal grandmother and maternal uncle had a history of mental illness, alongside her own physical ailments like bronchial asthma.[29] Similarly, in Nalu v The State,[30] the Appellate Division affirmed that judicial discretion must consider mitigating circumstances to ensure punishment remains proportionate to maturity. The Court established that rationales such as tender age, lack of a previous criminal record, and family circumstances are the ‘soul of the decision-making process’, mandating that the state justifies its choice between life and death rather than acting out of mere retribution. [31]
This movement toward developmental and psychiatric sensitivity in South Asian sentencing finds a profound parallel in the deeply rooted welfare-centric paradigm of Scandinavia.[32] In Norway, the 1994 murder of a five-year-old girl by two six-year-old boys in Trondheim was handled not as a criminal act, but as a community tragedy.[33] While the legal impossibility of a criminal prosecution was a mandatory result of Norway’s MACR of 15, the framing of the event as a community tragedy was a deliberate cultural choice to favour social solidarity and reintegration over individualised punishment.[34] Reflecting this ethos, the boys were never named and were reintegrated into school within two weeks of the incident.[35] Ultimately, it is established that the global promise of child justice is a body of enforceable jurisprudence that demands a multifaceted, therapeutic approach to protect children from a burgeoning culture of retribution.[36]
The Neo-Liberal Shift: From Welfare to Responsibilisation
However, such global promise is in fact increasingly besieged by a countervailing ideological current. The body of enforceable jurisprudence established in the preceding discussion which founded on the primacy of the child’s developmental and psychiatric needs finds itself in direct conflict with a broader, systemic transformation in global crime control. To understand why a ‘punitiveness gap’ continues to widen despite such robust legal mandates, it is necessary to move beyond the text of the law and examine the socio-political realignment that has come to define the late 20th century: the decisive shift from traditional ‘penal welfarism’ toward the exclusionary rationalities of neo-liberal governance.[37]
Central to this neo-liberal rationality is the strategy of ‘responsibilisation’.[38] This strategy involves the central government acting upon crime not through direct state agencies like social work or specialised courts, but indirectly by activating action on the part of non-state organisations, families, and individuals.[39] This phenomenon, described as ‘governing at a distance’, pushes the duty of crime control onto the community while the state maintains control through increased surveillance and directives.[40] In this climate, delinquency is no longer viewed as a symptom of social deprivation but as a failure of individual choice and familial control, leading to a system that prioritises ‘just deserts’ over the child’s evolving developmental needs.[41]
This ideological realignment has led to a profound ‘adulteration’ or ‘adultification’ of youth justice as its broader effect is to redefine youth offending as a matter of individual accountability rather than developmental vulnerability. While the distinction between adult and juvenile systems diminishes, children are increasingly subjected to the ‘full force of the law’.[42] This process is most visible in jurisdictions that allow for ‘juvenile waiver’ or transfer, where minors are indicted, tried, and sentenced within adult criminal court.[43] The James Bulger case in the United Kingdom represents a defining moment in this punitive shift.[44] Following public outrage over the murder of a toddler by two ten-year-old boys, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 abolished the protective principle of doli incapax, removing the presumption that children between the ages of 10 and 14 lacked criminal capacity.[45] Likewise, Japan’s 2000 revision of the Juvenile Act reduced the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 14,[46] resulting in greater involvement of juveniles in adult criminal proceedings.[47] These reforms demonstrate how political pressure and public demand for security have often prioritised punishment over rehabilitation.
Critical Evaluation: The Contradictions of Reform
Therefore, a critical evaluation reveals that contemporary reforms are often ensnared in profound contradictions, most notably the ‘spliced justice’ dilemma. The restorative justice initiatives rarely replace formal adversarial systems. Instead, they frequently co-exist as a parallel track where ‘child-friendly’ alternatives are reserved for low-level, compliant offenders.[48] Meanwhile, ‘heavy-enders’ like those charged with more serious crimes or who prove recalcitrant are relegated to increasingly retributive measures.[49] This bifurcation creates a two-tier system that allows states to claim adherence to international ‘best interests’ principles without disturbing the hegemony of punishment for the most vulnerable children.[50] Consequently, restorative justice may act as a benign alternative for some while failing to challenge the punitive core of the wider penal apparatus.[51]
Furthermore, the pervasive phenomenon of ‘double-victimisation’ represents the most harrowing outcome of the ‘adulteration’ of youth justice. Children who are first victims of structural social injustices, such as systemic poverty, neglect, and homelessness often find themselves victimised a second time by the state’s own institutional violence.[52] The grim reality of this shift is visible in jurisdictions where rights-based rhetoric fails to curb systemic abuse. This is particularly evident in jurisdictions like Nigeria and Kenya, where domestic laws may exist on paper but children remain integrated with adult prison populations in substandard conditions.[53] Additionally, in Colombia, street children have been subjected to torture in police cells for extended periods, even though such practices are explicitly prohibited by the national Code for Minors.[54] This serves as an emblematic example of how the adultification of marginalised groups fosters a culture of impunity. [55]
Conclusion: Navigating a New Path
In conclusion, the modern landscape of juvenile justice is defined by a profound ‘punitiveness gap’ between international human rights rhetoric and localised practice. To bridge this gap, states must move beyond the ‘spliced justice’ model and commit to a truly rights-based, therapeutic framework.[56] This requires adopting a public health approach rooted in forensic child and adolescent psychiatry, utilising evidence-based interventions like Multisystemic Therapy (MST) rather than punitive isolation or ineffective ‘boot camp’ models.[57] Only by realigning domestic policies with these restorative and therapeutic principles can the global community protect its most vulnerable members from a burgeoning culture of retribution and ensure that juvenile justice is no longer the ‘unwanted child’ of international human rights.[58]
Reference(S):
Primary Sources
Cases
Fedotova and Others v Russia [GC] App nos 40792/10, 30538/14 and 43439/14
H.F. and Others v France [GC] App nos 24384/19, 44234/20
Nalu v The State (2012) 32 BLD (AD) 247
The State and Ors v Oyshee Rahman and Ors (2017) 25 BLT (HCD) 503
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland [GC] App nos 53300/20
Legislation
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 34
Juvenile Act (Act No. 168 of 1948)
Books
Zalkind P and Simon RJ, Global Perspectives on Social Issues: Juvenile Justice Systems (Lexington Books 2004)
Garland D, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (OUP 2001)
International Treaty
Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3
Legal Instruments
UNGA Res 40/33 ‘United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijijng Guidelines)’ (29 November 1985) UN Doc A/RES/40/33
UNGA Res 45/112 ‘United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines)’ (14 December 1990) UN Doc A/RES/45/112
UNGA Res 45/113 ‘United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules)’ (14 December 1990) UN Doc A/RES/45/113
Secondary Sources
Journal Articles
Abrams LS, Jordan SP and Montero LA, ‘What Is a Juvenile? A Cross-National Comparison of Youth Justice Systems’ (2018) 18 Youth Justice 1
Abramson B, Juvenile Justice: The “Unwanted Child” of State Responsibilities (Defence for Children International 2000)
Council of Europe, Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child-Friendly Justice (Council of Europe 2010)
Garland D, ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society’ (1996) 36 British Journal of Criminology 445
Goldson B and Muncie J, ‘Towards a Global “Child Friendly” Juvenile Justice?’ (2012) 40 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 47
Jin GX, ‘The Criminal Responsibility of Minors in the Japanese Legal System’ (2004) 75 International Review of Penal Law 409
Kreštalica S, ‘The ECHR in the Age of Transition: Between Evolution and Legitimacy Crisis’ (2025) 34(1) BiLD Law Journal 76
Liefaard T, ‘Child-Friendly Justice: Protection and Participation of Children in the Justice System’ (2016) 88 Temple Law Review 905
Mookherjee UK, ‘Extending Moral Standing to Environmental Entities- Whom and How? Concerns and Considerations’ (2025) 34(1) BiLD Law Journal 45
Muncie J, ‘The Globalisation of Crime Control: The Case of Youth and Juvenile Justice’ (2005) 9 Theoretical Criminology 35
Nayak B and Choudhury S, ‘Juvenile Delinquency’ (2025) 5(6) International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology 218
Noman S, ‘Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency under the Criminal Justice System in Bangladesh: An Overview’ (2018) 3(2) BiLD Law Journal 53
Rose N and Miller P, ‘Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government’ (1992) 43 British Journal of Sociology 173
Silvee SS, ‘Mitigating Factors: Consistent or per incuriam approach of the HCD’ (2018) 4(1) BiLD Law Journal 17
Wacquant L, ‘The Penalization of Poverty and the Rise of Neo-liberalism’ (2001) 9 European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 401
Wacquant L, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Duke University Press 2009)
Young S, Greer B and Church R, ‘Juvenile Delinquency, Welfare, Justice and Therapeutic Interventions: A Global Perspective’ (2017) 41 BJPsych Bulletin 21
Websites
‘Death of Silje Redergård’ (Wikipedia, 19 June 2026) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Silje_Redergård accessed 5 August 2026
Human Rights Watch, ‘Columbia—Code for Minors’ (November 1994) http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/colombia/gener3.htm accessed 6 August 2026
Human Rights Watch, ‘Juvenile Injustice: Police Abuse and Detention of Street Children in Kenya’ (June 1997) https://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/kenya/ accessed 6 August 2026
Joutsen M, ‘UN Standards and Norms on Juvenile Justice: From Soft Law to Hard Law’ (UNODC) https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Juvenile_Justice_Standards.pdf accessed 6 August 2026
McIntosh C, ‘Final Evaluation Summary of the Multisystemic Therapy Program’ (Public Safety Canada 2015) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r015/index-en.aspx accessed 6 August 2026
Pratt J, ‘Explaining Penal Contrasts: Scandinavia V. The Anglophone Countries’ (2011) Straus Working Paper 01/11, 23 https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/siwp/WP1Pratt.pdf accessed 5 August 2026
Save the Children, ‘United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: The Riyadh guidelines (A/RES/45/112)’ https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/united-nations-guidelines-prevention-juvenile-delinquency-riyadh-guidelines-ares45112 accessed 3 August 2026
Silvee SS, ‘High Court decision on death reference’ The New Age (Dhaka, 18 September 2018) http://www.newagebd.net/article/50834/high-court-decision-on-death-reference accessed 5 August 2026
UNGA, ‘Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children’ (29 August 2006) UN Doc A/61/299. https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/sites/violenceagainstchildren.un.org/files/documents/publications/un_world_report_on_violence_against_children.pdf accessed 6 August 2026
UNODC, ‘Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Module 13 Key Issues: References’ https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-13/key-issues/references.html accessed 5 August 2026
Wickert C, ‘David Garland – The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (2001)’ (SozTheo, 13 August 2025) https://soztheo.com/criminology/key-works-in-criminology/david-garland-the-culture-of-control-crime-and-social-order-in-contemporary-society-2001/ accessed 6 August 2026
Law Reports
Child Rights Information Network, Global Report on Status Offences (CRIN 2010)
Child Rights Information Network, Juvenile Justice in South Asia: Improving Protection for Children in Conflict with the Law (UNICEF 2006)
Pinheiro PS, World Report on Violence against Children (United Nations 2006)
Legal Commentaries
Padmanabhan K, ‘Bridging the Gap Between Punishment and Care: An Ethnographic Study of the Breddon Women’s Centre and its Relationship to the State’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge 2024)
Witt A, Hainsworth J and Foussard C, ‘Promoting Alternatives to Detention for Children in Conflict with the Law – a European Overview’ in Alternatives to Custody (BAAF 2015)
[1] Barry Goldson and John Muncie, ‘Towards a Global “Child Friendly” Juvenile Justice?’ (2012) 40 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 47, 56, citing B Abramson, Juvenile Justice: The “Unwanted Child” of State Responsibilities (Defence for Children International 2000)
[2] Goldson and Muncie (n 1) 48-49
[3] John Muncie, ‘The Globalisation of Crime Control: The Case of Youth and Juvenile Justice’ (2005) 9(1) Theoretical Criminology 35, 37-38
[4] Muncie, ‘The Globalisation of Crime Control’ (n 3) 45, citing L Wacquant, ‘The Penalization of Poverty and the Rise of Neo-liberalism’ (2001) 9 European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 401
[5] Susan Young, Ben Greer and Richard Church, ‘Juvenile Delinquency, Welfare, Justice and Therapeutic Interventions: A Global Perspective’ (2017) 41 BJPsych Bulletin 21-22
[6] Council of Europe, Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child Friendly Justice (2010)
[7] Muncie, ‘The Globalisation of Crime Control’ (n 3) 45, citing L Wacquant, ‘The Penalization of Poverty and the Rise of Neo-liberalism’ (2001) 9 European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 401
[8] Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, World Report on Violence Against Children (United Nations 2006) 16
[9] Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 (UNCRC)
[10] UNCRC, art 37(b); Paola Zalkind and Rita J Simon, Global Perspectives on Social Issues: Juvenile Justice Systems (Lexington Books 2004) 5
[11] UNGA Res 40/33 ‘United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules)’ (29 November 1985) UN Doc A/RES/40/33
[12] Beijing Rules, r 4.1
[13] Beijing Rules, r 11
[14] Beijing Rules, r 12
[15] Paola and Simon (n 10) 3
[16] UNGA Res 45/112 ‘United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines)’ (14 December 1990) UN Doc A/RES/45/112
[17] Save the Children, ‘United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: The Riyadh guidelines (A/RES/45/112)’ https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/united-nations-guidelines-prevention-juvenile-delinquency-riyadh-guidelines-ares45112 accessed 3 August 2026
[18] Riyadh Guidelines, para 5
[19] Riyadh Guidelines, para 54
[20] Child Rights Information Network (CRIN), ‘Global Report on Status Offences’ (2010) 4, citing Riyadh Guidelines, para 56
[21] UNGA Res 45/113 ‘United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules)’ (14 December 1990) UN Doc A/RES/45/113
[22] Havana Rules, rules 19, 31, 67; UNODC, ‘Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Module 13 Key Issues: References’ https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-13/key-issues/references.html accessed 5 August 2026; Shibly Noman, ‘Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency under the Criminal Justice System in Bangladesh: An Overview’ (2018) 3(2) BiLD Law Journal 54, 136-137
[23] Sanja Kreštalica, ‘The ECHR in the Age of Transition: Between Evolution and Legitimacy Crisis’ (2025) 34(1) BiLD Law Journal 76
[24] H.F. and Others v France [GC] App nos 24384/19 and 44234/20 (ECtHR, 14 September 2022); Fedotova and Others v Russia [GC] App nos 40792/10, 30538/14 and 43439/14 (ECtHR, 17 January 2023)
[25] Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland [GC] App no 53300/20 (ECtHR, 9 April 2024)
[26] Mookherjee Ujal ‘Extending Moral Standing to Environmental Entities- Whom’ (2025) 34(1) BiLD Law Journal 45, 63
[27] The State and Ors v Oyshee Rahman and Ors (2017) 25 BLT (HCD) 503
[28] Sadiya S Silvee, ‘Mitigating Factors: Consistent or per incuriam approach of the HCD’ (2018) 4(1) BiLD Law Journal 17, 33
[29] Sadiya S Silvee, ‘High Court decision on death reference’ The New Age (Dhaka, 18 September 2018) http://www.newagebd.net/article/50834/high-court-decision-on-death-reference accessed 5 August 2026
[30] Nalu v The State (2012) 32 BLD (AD) 247
[31] Silvee (n 28) 19
[32] Muncie (n 1) 53
[33] ‘Death of Silje Redergård’ (Wikipedia, 19 June 2026) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Silje_Redergård accessed 5 August 2026
[34] John Pratt, ‘Explaining Penal Contrasts: Scandinavia V. The Anglophone Countries’ (2011) Straus Working Paper 01/11, 23 https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/siwp/WP1Pratt.pdf accessed 5 August 2026
[35]Muncie (n 1) 54
[36] Goldson and Muncie (n 1) 48
[37] David Garland, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (OUP 2001); Christian Wickert, ‘David Garland – The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (2001)’ (SozTheo, 13 August 2025) https://soztheo.com/criminology/key-works-in-criminology/david-garland-the-culture-of-control-crime-and-social-order-in-contemporary-society-2001/ accessed 6 August 2026
[38] Muncie, ‘The Globalisation of Crime Control’ (n 3) 45
[39] ibid; David Garland, ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society’ (1996) 36(4) British Journal of Criminology 445, 452
[40] Nikolas Rose and Peter Miller, ‘Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government’ (1992) 43(2) British Journal of Sociology 173
[41] Loïc Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Duke University Press 2009) as discussed in ‘Bridging the Gap Between Punishment and Care: An Ethnographic Study of the Breddon Women’s Centre’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge 2023) 37-38
[42] Laura S Abrams, Sid P Jordan and Laura A Montero, ‘What Is a Juvenile? A Cross-National Comparison of Youth Justice Systems’ (2018) 18 Youth Justice 1, 2
[43] Paola and Simon (n 10) 9-10
[44] Abrams, Jordan and Montero (n 42) 13; Ton Liefaard, ‘Child-Friendly Justice: Protection and Participation of Children in the Justice System’ (2016) 88 Temple Law Review 905, 915
[45] Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 34
[46] Juvenile Act (Act No. 168 of 1948)
[47] Guang-Xu Jin, ‘The Criminal Responsibility of Minors in the Japanese Legal System’ (2004) 75 International Review of Penal Law 409-421, 415
[48] ‘Bridging the Gap Between Punishment and Care: An Ethnographic Study of the Breddon Women’s Centre’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge 2023) 17, 82; Andrea Witt, Jana Hainsworth and Cedric Foussard, ‘Promoting Alternatives to Detention for Children in Conflict with the Law: A European Overview’ in Alternatives to Custody (2015) 30
[49] CRIN, Juvenile Justice in South Asia: Improving Protection for Children in Conflict with the Law (2005) 17, 30
[50] Witt, Hainsworth and Foussard (n 48) 8; ‘Bridging the Gap’ (n 48) 38; CRIN (n 49) 5
[51] ‘Bridging the Gap’ (n 48) 78 (citing Pat Carlen, ‘Carceral Clawback’ (2002) and discussing ‘carceral humanism’)
[52] Goldson and Muncie (n 1) 58
[53] Paola and Simon (n 10) 125 (Kenya), 136-137 (Nigeria); Human Rights Watch, ‘Juvenile Injustice: Police Abuse and Detention of Street Children in Kenya’ (June 1997) https://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/kenya/ accessed 6 August 2026
[54] Human Rights Watch, ‘Columbia—Code for Minors’ http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/colombia/gener3.htm accessed 6 August 2026
[55] UNGA, ‘Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children’ (29 August 2006) UN Doc A/61/299. https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/sites/violenceagainstchildren.un.org/files/documents/publications/un_world_report_on_violence_against_children.pdf accessed 6 August 2026
[56] Witt, Hainsworth and Foussard (n 48) 23
[57] Baishali Nayak and Sanjaya Choudhury, ‘Juvenile Delinquency’ (2025) 5(6) International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology 218, 218; Cameron McIntosh, ‘Final Evaluation Summary of the Multisystemic Therapy Program’ (Public Safety Canada 2015) 1-2 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r015/index-en.aspx accessed 6 August 2026
[58] Matti Joutsen, ‘UN Standards and Norms on Juvenile Justice: From Soft Law to Hard Law’ (UNODC) 21 (citing B Abramson, Juvenile Justice: the ‘Unwanted Child’ of State Responsibilities (2000)) https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Juvenile_Justice_Standards.pdf accessed 6 August 2026
