Submitted by crinadmin on
[6 February 2008] - Children's rights groups have slammed the revised draft of the Child Justice Bill in South Africa, saying it discriminates against children accused of violent crime.
Representatives of non-government organisations have told MPs that it is problematic to exclude children over 14 years who are charged with serious offences from the bill's restorative justice provisions. The provisions allow evaluation by social workers or probation officers and a preliminary inquiry where diversion may be considered. Children denied a preliminary inquiry would go directly to trial and land up in prison where they could not be rehabilitated, the NGOs said. There was a need for these children to be assessed so the reasons for their involvement in murder, rape or aggravated robbery could be understood. Equally important was that a child's family circumstances and upbringing be understood, the NGOs told the portfolio justice committee on the first day of public hearings on the bill. Childline was unhappy that the diversion programmes would provide only for children who committed less serious crimes, its national director, Joan van Niekerk, said. Diversion should be an option for any child, regardless of age or offence. Van Niekerk said MPs had to consider that South African children were exposed daily to violent crime. Carol Johnson (ANC) said she wanted justice officials to explain why not all children would be assessed. Lawrence Bassett, of the Department of Justice, said there were not enough probation officers to assess all child offenders. This meant cases needed to be categorised according to their nature. Ann Skelton, of the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria, said: "You can't make a quality decision without information. Some children will go straight to (trial), bypassing assessment and diversion (programmes)." Barbara Holtman, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research's Crime Prevention Research Group, said placing young criminals in diversion programmes would ease the pressure on courts. Further information