International Journal of Environment, Ecology,

Family and Urban Studies (IJEEFUS)

ISSN(P): 2250-0065; ISSN(E): 2321-0109
Vol. 6, Issue 2, Apr 2016, 37-48
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW: MECHANISMS TO

PROTECT OR REOFFEND?
JOTHAM J. JOHNSON1, ADLYN O. JOHNSON2,
ADOLPHUS JOHNSON3 & AUGUSTINE MACAULEY4
1
2

M.Sc Sociology, Njala University, Njala, Moyamba, Sierra Leone

Research Scholar, Njala University, Njala, Moyamba, Sierra Leone

3

M.Agriculture, Njala University, Njala, Moyamba, Sierra Leone

4

Njala University, Njala, Moyamba, Sierra Leone

ABSTRACT
The main function of Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres is containment and rehabilitatory. This study was
conceived to investigate mechanisms that have been put in place to protect youths in conflict with the law. The study was
undertaken in the Western Area of Sierra Leone which has the capital, Freetown. Respondents to the questionnaires were a
bulk population of forty of the offenders in the two Juvenile Detention Centres that consented to take part in the study.

staff of the Juvenile Correctional Centres.

Results revealed that mechanisms are still inadequate despite the passing of the Child Rights Act in 2007.
Separate courts for juvenile offenderscourts have not been created and there are no educational facilities for offenders
who are awaiting sentences even though some of them spend over a year before they are sentenced. However, only one of
the offenders is a reoffender and all of them stated that they have developed a negative attitude towards reoffending.
Inferential statisticsrevealed that the following determinantswere significant at P value of 95 percent confidence level:

Original Article

Focused Group discussions were held with stakeholders including community members of the Juvenile Delinquents and

counselling and education for developing a positive attitude to reoffending.

Recommendations include: ensuring that all efforts be made for Juvenile Delinquents not to be detained before
their convictions; they should have access to formal schooling whilst awaiting trialand Social welfare workers should have
follow-up mechanisms to ensure these juveniles are properly integrated into society to ensure that reoffending does not
occur.
KEYWORDS: Juvenile Delinquents, Mechanisms, Conflict with the Law

Received: Feb 14, 2016; Accepted: Apr 06, 2016; Published: Apr 11, 2016; Paper Id.: IJEEFUSAPR20165

INTRODUCTION
A juvenile according to the Child Rights Act (2007) is considered as a person below the age of eighteen.
While twenty six years have passed since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC), global progress made in terms of guaranteeing the rights of children in Juvenile Justice systems has been
very uneven, (Defence for Children International, 2007). Not all State Parties have child centred, specialized
Juvenile Justice systems for all children up to the age of 18 years, which are comprehensive and separate from adult
criminal justice systems, and have rehabilitation and social reintegration as their primary aims, in accordance with
their obligations under the CRC. Internationally, although laws and conventions have been passed to ensure that the

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

38

Jotham J. Johnson, Adlyn O. Johnson, Adolphus Johnson & Augustine Macauley

problem of Juvenile Delinquency is reduced, the statement written above shows that the problem continues.
Continentally, in Africa, Juvenile Delinquency thrives as a result of socio-economic factors. There is endemic
poverty and as a result, Juveniles deviate from the conventional modes of living and become deviants as a means to
survive. There is also the absence of structures such as Social Welfare workers who can easily identify youths who are in
danger of falling foul of the law and can help prevent it, (Defence against Children International, 2007).
One of the priority areas for the Sierra Leone Government following the end of the war were efforts to bring the
laws relating to child rights in line with the millennium. The Sierra Leone government passed into law the Child Rights Act
in 2007 which introduced several innovations including creation of the Family Supports Unit (FSU) of the Sierra Leone
Police to prevent delinquency among youths who may be victims of family neglect arising from broken relationships or
homes. Furthermore, the Government has ratified various international instruments aimed at promoting and protecting the
rights of children, including the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juveniles, commonly known as the Beijing Rules.
Robins (2009) has stated that despite the fact that Sierra Leone has passed the Child Rights Act and has ratified
many international conventions, there continues to be administrative and logistical constraints which impede on the
problems of Juvenile Delinquency. The speed of judicial proceedings for and juveniles is still too slow. There is as yet no
dedicated court of law for juveniles. Robins (2009) further brings out the problems of alleviating the problems of Juvenile
Delinquency as the Ministry responsible for juvenile delinquents has limited budgetary allocations and this hampers its
work on juvenile delinquents.
Mechanisms
UNICEF Report (2006) states that, there are three main areas where young people come into contact with the
State. It is noted that in education and health considerable efforts are being made by governments to try and ensure that the
results are beneficial. However, when it comes to the criminal justice systems, especially in African countries, very few
compromises have been made for youths who are delinquents. Instead, the usual experience of such youths leads to
hardening experiences and the possibilities that they become adult criminals. Despite the fact that laws such as the Child
Rights Act have been passed and conventions such as the UN Guidelines have been signed, the UNICEF Report (2011)
warns that most juveniles in conflict with the law will feel the heavy weight of out-dated colonial approaches that rely on
arrest, containment and institution-based rehabilitation.
The following paragraphs detail some of the rights of the Juvenile Delinquent and the constraints attached to these
rights. The right of a child to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her
defence at trial is a well-recognized right and should be clearly set out in juvenile justice legislation. The Child Rights Act
(2007) recommends that this assistance be free of charge and acknowledges that it does not need to be legal under all
circumstances. It advises that the Social Welfare worker must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the various
legal aspects of the process of juvenile justice and must be trained to work with children in conflict with the law.
The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (2004) as cited in UN (2007) provides that the child
shall be provided with legal and other appropriate assistance. In practice, the extent to which children can be required to
pay for legal assistance varies. For example, in developed countries, legal aid assistance is entirely free. In African
countries, particularly Sierra Leone, as noted by Prison Watch (2010), although, children who come in contact with the law
Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Juveniles in Conflict with the Law: Mechanisms to Protect or Reoffend?

39

are often from the most marginalized and vulnerable segments of society, yet the State Counsels allocated to their trial are
often the most junior and inexperienced lawyers.
Defence for Children International (2006) ground breaking work on children in conflict with the law state that no
African or South Asian country has fully implemented a separate and distinct Juvenile Justice system to ensure that
children in such children are treated in a manner substantially different than adults at all stages of the proceedings. CRC
(1989) states that detention pending trial shall only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible time.
The Beijing Rules (1985) states that whenever possible, alternatives such as close supervision, placement with a family or
in an educational or home setting should be used. It is expected that if it used, efforts must be made to expedite the process
to ensure the shortest possible period of detention. UNICEF (2011) highlights the fact that juveniles who are detained are
known to languish for months or even years waiting for their cases to be heard. Juvenile delinquents, according to Roberts
(2010) reoffend because of the treatment they receive at the hands of those entrusted with their welfare. They become
disillusioned and embark on a life of crime because they realize that most of the mechanisms that exist to protect them are
not being adhered to and that the only way to survive is to engage in crime.
Pinheiro (2003) states that institutionalization should be the last option when sentencing the juvenile. It is
extremely difficult to implement and respect all the rights of the child while he or she is deprived of liberty and placed in a
detention centre or prison. He further states that it has been recognized for some time that placing a child in a detention
centre, a prison or any other closed institution can have adverse influences on a child, which cannot be outbalanced by
treatment efforts. The effects of institutionalization, which include separation from family and community, are often
compounded by poor conditions and limited or non-existent reintegration activities and programmes. Prison life can also
expose vulnerable young offenders to a culture of violence. This experience leaves young people vulnerable to family
breakdown, homelessness, difficulty in obtaining employment, mental health problems and re-offending on release. As the
commentary to Beijing Rules (1985) notes, progressive criminology advocates the use of non-institutional over
institutional treatment. Indeed, UN (2003) study seems to indicate clearly that institutionalization of children is far more
likely to lead to further offending than community-based sentences.
CRC (2007) provides that the best interests of the juvenile should be a primary consideration in all actions
concerning children. This principle applies just as much in deciding what sentence shall be imposed on a child as to any
other decision.The principle of proportionality requires that the response to a juvenile offence should always be in
proportion not only to the circumstances and the gravity of the offence, but also to the age.UNICEF (2006) assessment of
Juvenile rehabilitation centres in South Asia report that the main function of Juvenile Rehabilitation centres is containment
and most lack the necessary staff and resources to effectively promote rehabilitation and reintegration. Basic facilities and
poor and in disrepair and few provide education based on the core school curriculum, counselling is limited and family
visits are restricted. The use of corporal punishment is common and many children lack basic living facilities and
family/community network to reintegrate into their communities.
Youths expectations about the workings of the juvenile justice system are revealing, particularly considering that
nearly two-fifths of youths in custody think they are unlikely to be apprehended for any repeat offense. According
toGiguere (2005), Juvenile Justice all over the world is intended to be rehabilitatory and reformative as it is assumed that
the Juveniles' minds are still teachable and easily amendable. Unfortunately, Juvenile delinquents are coming into the
juvenile justice system with an array of problems that have caused them to commit delinquent acts and may cause them to
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

40

Jotham J. Johnson, Adlyn O. Johnson, Adolphus Johnson & Augustine Macauley

reoffend. Once juvenile delinquents finish their sentience, they must re-enter society. Youths that recidivate are less likely
to do so if Correctional facilities that oversee the rehabilitation process ensure that theJuvenile Delinquent has realistic and
obtainable resources and means to make it in society and also if the Officers ensure that the Juvenile Delinquent is fully
aware of his crime and ready for the transition to society.
Darbouze (2013) purpose in an evaluative study in a state in the U.S. was to examine the views of youths that
have been incarcerated and the rehabilitative programmes that they have undergone. He noted that rehabilitating deviant
youths is a big problem because most caught in crimes comes from poor, fragmented homes, have delinquent friends and
are drop outs from schools. Butlers and Jeremy (2002)expound on another view of the poor attitude that delinquent youths
are facing. They state that society resents the fact that public money is being spent on the rehabilitation of crimes. He notes
that despite these problems, two thirds of the first time offenders will not be incarcerated again because most realize that a
life of crime does not pay. However, for the one-third of these youths, they will continue to offend because their
temperament, poverty and lack of parental support mean that they lack the support mechanisms that may keep them out of
prisons.
Goldstein (1990) is of the opinion that rehabilitation must include future employment for jobs that have to be
practical and utilitarian. He insists that Juvenile Delinquents want measures implemented in their rehabilitation that will
help them make it in society after confinement. His study also stated that Juvenile Delinquents are of the opinion that
although group housing and group dynamic interaction is important because it offers an array of advantages, they would
prefer that close confinement of first offenders with chronic offenders be minimized. Also, rehabilitation strategies must
include sessions with parents so that Juvenile Delinquents do not go back to the original environment that thrived on crime.
Group therapy with the parents, siblings and members of the community will allow for strong social bonds and minimize
the long separation between these groups mentioned whilst the youths is in confinement.
Giguere (2003) found out that most youths despite being involved in crime and being confined have positive
attitudes for their lives. They stated that would like to go to college, or even to Graduate school, and that the large majority
expect to hold a steady job in the future. Boakye (2012) came up with the conclusions of the findings of the above stated
report but stated that poverty which is difficult to eradicate will mean that Juvenile Delinquency will continue to be a
problem in Africa. UNICEF (2006) highlights the fact that despite the fact that they may have positive attitudes and goals
for their lives, it is up to the governments to come up with intervention programmes to reduce recidivism. NGOs must help
actively by motivating critical changes in Juvenile youths' behaviour especially through further education programmes and
partnership programmes with the youths' communities.
In order to better understand the attitude of youths to reoffending, it is important that attention be devoted to the
situation of the deviant young in Sierra Leone and the mechanisms that have been instituted to protect them. A research
objective was posited which was:
To assess the level of knowledge of Juvenile Delinquents of the mechanisms in place to address juvenile
delinquency. A null hypothesis was stated that:

H0: There is no significant relationship between Perception of Juvenile Offenders to Crime and the Mechanisms
available whilst in Confinement
H1: There is a significant relationship between Perception of Juvenile Offenders to Crime

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

and

the

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Juveniles in Conflict with the Law: Mechanisms to Protect or Reoffend?

41

Mechanisms available whilst in Confinement

Research Methodology
A non-experimental survey research design was adopted for the study. This research was conducted in the Western
Area of Sierra Leone which houses Freetown, the seat and capital of the country. The data for this study was collected
through questionnaires from the two institutions where juveniles are incarcerated in the capital, Freetown, Remand Home
and the Approved School. Out of the fifty juveniles incarcerated, ten opted not to take part in the study and a bulk form of
data collection was utilized as the forty inmates who volunteered to take part in the study formed the respondents that
answered the questionnaires. Furthermore, the researcher interviewed key other stakeholders working on Juvenile
Delinquency issues. The information from the stake holders was recorded and used in discussing the issues that helped to
achieve the objectives of the research. The data collected during this study was summarized by using descriptive statistical
techniques like percentages, frequencies, and means. Inferential statistical technique was used in order to test the
hypothesis set out in the study.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

All but one of the respondents was first offenders and all of them stated that they now had a negative attitude to
crime and that they would not reoffend.
Table 1: Time Span between Arrest and Trial of Respondents
Category
Above 2 Years
1Year- 2 Years
6Months -1Year
Less Than 6 Months
Total

Frequency
1
2
4
14
21

Percentage
2.5
10
20
67.5
100

Table 1above depicts the time span between the arrest and the trial of the respondents. 67.5% spent less than six
months. 20% spent seven months to one year. 10% spent one year to two years. Lastly 2.5% spent above two years.
Table 2: bearers of the Cost of Legal Representations
Category
Government
NGO
Parents
Total

Frequency
24
16
40

Percentage
60
40
100

Table 2 shows the categories of those who bear the cost of legal representation for the respondents. 60% of the
respondents received legal representation through the government sponsorship. None were supported by NGOs for legal
representation. 40% of the respondents said that their parents were responsible for the legal representation because they
distrusted the young defence attorneys assigned to their cases.
Table 3: Access to Medical Treatment
Category
YES
NO
Total

www.tjprc.org

Frequency
20
20
40

Percentage
50
50
100

editor@tjprc.org

42

Jotham J. Johnson, Adlyn O. Johnson, Adolphus Johnson & Augustine Macauley

Table 3 illustrated that 50% of the respondents stated that they have received medical treatment. Whilst another
50% answered the question negatively showing they had not had any access to medical treatment. All those in the Home
awaiting trials, do not have access to medical care.
Table 4: Respondents' Access to Education
Category
YES
NO
Total

Frequency
27
13
40

Percentage
67.5
32.5
100

The table above displayed information concerning the respondents access to education at the Correctional
Facilities. 67.5% of the respondents answered positively to the question meaning they had access to education. 32.5% on
the other hand answered in the negative indicating that they had no such access. It was interesting to note that most of the
respondents awaiting trial answered negatively to this question.
Table 5: Respondents' Access to a Balanced Diet
Category
YES
NO
Total

Frequency
40
40

Percentage
100
100

Table 5 depicts the access to balanced diet by the respondents. 100% of the respondents said that their meals are
balanced.
Table 6: Awareness of Capp 44 Laws and Child Rights Act (2007)
Category
YES
NO
Total

Frequency
7
33
40

Percentage
17.5
82.5
100

Table 6 displayed data on awareness of the respondents of the laws that concern them; such as the CAP 44 Law
and Child Rights Act, 2007. 17.5% of the respondents had some form of awareness of such laws, whilst 82.5% answered in
the negative to being aware of such laws.
Table 7: Placement in Same Correctional Facility as an Adult
Category
YES
NO
Total

Frequency
19
21
40

Percentage
47.5
52.5
100

Table 7 above presented information as to the placement of respondents in the same correctional facility as adults.
47.5% answered positively indicating that they had been placed in the same Correctional Facility as an adult.
Table 8: Violence in the Correctional Facilities
Category
YES
NO
Total

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

Frequency
12
28
40

Percentage
30
70
100

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Juveniles in Conflict with the Law: Mechanisms to Protect or Reoffend?

43

Table 8 deals with the issue of violence whilst at the Correctional Facilities by respondents. 30% had a positive
answer thereby indicating that they are subjected to violence. 70% however, answer in the negative to being subjected to
any form of violence.
Table 9: Forms of Violence Used at the Correctional Facilities
Category
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Verbal Abuse
Deprivation
Total

Frequency
9
3
12

Percentage
75
25
100

Table 9 depicts the forms of violence that the respondents fact at the Correctional Facilities. The total number of
respondents was those who had stated in the past question that they had suffered violence whilst confined. 75% of the
respondents had been exposed to physical abuse and 25% had experienced verbal abuse.
Presentation of Hypotheses Testing
Table 10: Juvenile Delinquents Perception of Crimes and Mechanisms Available in Confinement
Model

Standardized
Coefficients

Sig.

7.448

.000

.163

1.094

.282

.031

-.460

-3.248

*.003

.033

.035

.123

.939

.354

-.025

.032

-.105

-.773

.445

-.121

.037

-.467

-3.261

*.003

How often loved ones visit

respondents

.030

.019

.229

1.577

.124

Experience of violence in
correctional facility

-.045

.038

-.158

-1.189

.243

Awareness of Juvenile Laws

.071

.044

.219

1.615

.116

B
1.043

Std. Error
.140

Beta

Whether respondents have

been convicted

.039

.036

Respondents Access to
counseling

-.102

Respondents access to legal

representation

(Constant)

Unstandardized Coefficients

Respondents access to medical

treatment
Respondents access to
education

a. Dependent Variable: Perception score of respondents

P-value Significant at 0.05 level of significance
The following determinants were significant at a confidence level of 95 percent. This implies that if they have
Counselliing Services and education whilst incarcerated their attitude will improve towards crime.

DISCUSSSIONS OF FINDINGS
Proper structures do not exist to curb juvenile delinquency at grassroots levels, the communities and the schools,
where risk prone juveniles are present. The emphasis for the government is on their arrest, trial, convictions and taking into
custody into a Juvenile Correctional Facility. The findings of the research confirm the misgivings of Pinheiro (2003) that
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

44

Jotham J. Johnson, Adlyn O. Johnson, Adolphus Johnson & Augustine Macauley

incarceration before and after trial has adverse effects on the juvenile and is one of the most extreme responses to youth
crime. In this study it was revealed that although, the time span between arrest and trial of respondents is relatively short;
this period is spent in a detention facility. These particular finding clearly points to the short comings of the judicial
systems. An Officer working in the Detention Centre pointed out in an interview that in contravention of section 7 of
chapter 44 of the laws of Sierra Leones 1960, the juvenile cases are not tried expediently. He said the cases drag on, as
`they are adjourned continuously. These Juveniles Offenders end up spending a year at the Remand Home before they are
finally sent to the Correctional Centre where they are to serve their sentence. This delay is in contravention of the Juveniles
Offenders rights as enshrined in the Beijing Rules (1985) and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. The
psychological trauma of not knowing their fate is distressing. A worrisome related finding was that adults and children are
being put together while incarcerated. Interviews with the officials pointed out that as a result of poor age assessment by
the courts and the slow progress of cases, the Juvenile Offenders inevitably become young adults. This in turn leads to
mingling of children and adults and is in contravention of the Child Rights Act (2007).
The principle of proportionality is clearly not meant to apply to juvenile offenders as their correction measure is
not punitive but rehabilitatory and reformation. The majority of the respondents had no knowledge of the laws that
concerned them which are the chapter 44 off the laws of Sierra Leone 1960, and the Child Right Act (2007). This finding is
inconsistent with the statement of Gibbens (2001) that the main aim of juvenile justice system is to reform and rehabilitate
the juveniles.It is important that more work be done on the information that juveniles should receive whilst incarcerated.
The mechanisms also focused on finding out if the basic needs of the children were being met. These basic needs
include food, medicines and education. The findings revealed that no medical treatment was available at the Detention
Facility. This was as a result of their key medical supplier, an NGO, GOAL IRELAND pulling out of Sierra Leone at the
start of the Ebola crisis. The Correctional Centre on the other hand has access to the Medical practitioner that treats adult
inmates. Access to medical help is part of the rights of the Children under conflict with the law. The findings corroborate
Prison Watch (2014) findings that the legal system does not operate to help Juvenile Delinquents. Indeed, it is not juveniles
who are in conflict with the law but the law that is in conflict with juveniles.
The findings further revealed some of the respondents did not have access to education. There was a major lack of
any form of education at the detention Facility. This finding corroborates UNICEF (2006) statement that few compromises
have been made for youths who are delinquents. Although, formal education is available at the Correctional Centre,
interviews with the teachers revealed their constraints.
The findings revealed that all respondents had access to food. They confirmed that they received a well -balanced
diet. This was a very welcome and encouraging discovery. The majority of respondents said they had not faced any
violence while at these Correctional Facilities. However a small number, which cannot be ignored, said they had faced
physical abuse from officials, in the form of serve beating. This is another major violation of the rights of a Juvenile
Offender. They are not to be abused in any way, (Beijing Rules, 1985). This anomaly was attributed to the Security
Officers in these facilities who have not received training on the treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and are unaware that
they are not to be given punitive or retributive punishment but rehabilitation and reformatory measures. This confirms
Gibbens (2001) that many are unaware that the aim of Juvenile Justice is to rehabilitate and not to turn them into
permanent crime.

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Juveniles in Conflict with the Law: Mechanisms to Protect or Reoffend?

45

All the respondents regretted and wished they had never engaged in crime. If the majority of juveniles had proper
awareness and knowledge on the evils of juvenile delinquency and its punishment, they may not desert to crime. The
respondents all said they would not reoffend once they were released. However this perception flows with Giguere (2005)
who also researched juvenile first time offenders who said they were not going commit crime again. According to most
stakeholders interviewed, their major concern was the reintegration process of the juvenile offender. When once more
exposed to the same risk factors encountered before incarceration, only a few will stay true to their commitment and stay
away from crime. Hence the systems should be in place for the juvenile to encounter positive change in his or her
environment so as to secure the resolve against juvenile delinquency.
The findings reveal that mechanisms for Juvenile Delinquents are inadequate and more efforts must be made to
ensure that youths who are in conflict with the law continue to have a negative attitude to crime and that they do not
reoffend when they go back to society.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The government must use a multi sector approach to educate youths on risk and protective factors and how not to
become and remain Juvenile Delinquents. The youths of Sierra Leone have to be top priority to the government, not only in
terms of policy formulation, but also in policy implementation if the fight against Juvenile Delinquency is to be successful.
The government is to embark on recruitment of trained counselors who could be religious and community leaders to do
widespread work with juveniles from all spheres of society, ranging from schools to Correctional Facilities, to families, the
ghettos and the entire communities at large. These Counsellors will be social workers with a strategized system of reaching
out to juveniles. A thorough follow up system should be set up to ensure that Juvenile Delinquents do not reoffend. These
social welfare workers must educate the juveniles on the laws that prohibit crimes and the penalties so as to cultivate a
negative perception to crime.
Juvenile Delinquents who have been released from Correctional Facilities must have start up kits or opportunities
for employment.This is to ensure these juveniles are properly integrated into society, to ensure no discrimination occurs.
Government should also be seen as implementing policies that concern the juvenile delinquency eradication. The Child
Rights Act has been passed in Sierra Leone since 2007 but most of its policies that are favourable to Juvenile Delinquents
have not been implemented. Government should also set up a system which can assess the level of compliance by the
general public to Juveniles' rights.
Juveniles who are in Correctional Facilities must have access to schools up to SSS level, technical and vocational
education with workshops and training centres, clinics and all who come in contact with them must be trained in Child
Protection rights. Media houses both print and electronic; must spread the message wide against juvenile delinquency.
Every form of mechanism or tool is to be exercised as pertaining juveniles so as to mold the minds of the juveniles against
juvenile delinquency. Programmes for all Juveniles and those for the parents should be aired to curb this menace.
The Judiciary has a major role to do proper age ofJuveniles so that they do not share facilities with adult criminals
who may corrupt them and lead them to reoffending. Juveniles must be tried expediently; their cases must not drag on in
court. Also, Juvenile courts must be established so as not to try Juveniles in the courts meant for adults. The government
should develop a coordinated, strategic plan for the reform of Juvenile Justice legislation, systems and practices that are
designed to ensure that there are clear distinctions between children offenders and adults. They must prioritize the

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

46

Jotham J. Johnson, Adlyn O. Johnson, Adolphus Johnson & Augustine Macauley

development of non-custodial sentencing alternatives; limit the use of detention, both pre-trial and as a sentencing option
and create partnerships by engaging the community in welcoming back these delinquents.

CONCLUSIONS
Finally the courts should ensure that every juvenile appearing as an accused should have available legal
representation. Non-Governmental organizations and International organizations must help with more funding in this
regard. They are to help with logistics that the Ministry in charge of Juvenile Delinquents need for dealing with juveniles.
They must partner with the government and other stakeholders to bring a better change. These organizations and
stakeholders must not be seen as acting separately as not much would be achieved without coordination of all agencies
involved in the work of ensuring that Juveniles do not go against the law and that they do not reoffend.
REFERENCES
1.

Benthin A. Slovic P. and Severson H., (1993). A Psychometric Study of Adolescent Risk Perception . Journal of Adolescent 16.

2.

Boakye A.O. (2012). Juvenile Delinquency in Ghana: A Qualitative Study of the Lived Experiences of Young Offenders in
Ghana. M.A. thesis in Human Development. Norwegian University of Science and Technology

3.

Butlers J and Jeremy S. (2002). The Rise and Fall of American Youth Violence 1980-2000. Urban Institute , Justice Policy
Centre.

4.
5.

Butterfield F. (1995). Grim Forecast Offered on Rising Juvenile Crime. New York Times.
Darbouze K.(2013). Rehabilitatory Methods and the Effects on Juvenile Delinquent Offenders. University of Maryland,
College Park

6.

Defence for Children International (2007). From Legislation to Action? Trends in Juvenile Justice Systems Across 15
Countries.

7.

Gibbens T.C.N. (2001). Trends in Juvenile Delinquency. WHO, Geneva Publications.

8.

Giguere R.M. (2005) How Incarceration Affects Juveniles: A Focus on the Changes in Frequencies and Prevalence of
Criminal Activity. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Maryland, College Park.

9.

Goldstein A.P. (1990). Delinquents on Delinquency. Champaign, Illinois; Research Press.

10. Hope B. (2006). Some Thoughts on Juvenile Justice in Sierra Leone. Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law.Freetown:
Sierra Leone Government Printers
11. Mouly M. (1999). Effective Psychology. Harper and Co.
12. Pinheiro, P.S. (2003) World Report on Violence Against Children. U.N. Secretary General Study on Violence Against Children.
U.N. Doc
13. Prison Watch Sierra Leone (2014). Beyond the Tall Walls: Behind Bars but not Beyond Justice. Issues1 (2)
14. Roberts C. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Effects. Yale, New Haven Teachers' Institute
15. Robins S. (2009). Failing Young Offenders . Juvenile Justice in Sierra Leone: Tanzania and Zambia. Policy Brief, Institute for
Security Studies
16. Shaefer R.T. (2004). Sociology: A Brief Introduction. 5th Edition
17. Sierra Leone Government (2007) Child Rights Act. Sierra Leone Government Printers
Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Juveniles in Conflict with the Law: Mechanisms to Protect or Reoffend?

47

18. United Nations (2003). Juvenile Delinquency, World Youth Report.

19. UNICEF (2011). Administrative Detention of Children: A Global Report. New York.
20. UNICEF (2006). Juvenile Justice in South Asia. Improving Protection for Children in Conflict with the Law. New York.
21. UNICEF (2007). U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) and African Charter
. UNICEF Documents. New York
22. UNICEF (1989). UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child. New Delhi, UNICEF

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org