Drawing on international good practices and promising initiatives, a workshop was held on June 11th 2019 in Hanoi on “Experience Sharing in Handling Cases under the Jurisdiction of Family and Juvenile Courts”. The workshop was conducted under the European Union ‘Justice and Legal Empowerment Programme’ (EU JULE).
The Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, Mr Nguyen Hoa Binh, expressed the importance of learning from international experience on adjudication of cases involving minors and appreciated the value of UNICEF in bringing such knowledge and experience for the Court system. In his address, the Chief Justice highly appreciated international lessons and good practices in handling child sexual abuse cases, especially the practice of closed trials, prohibition of cross-examination of minors by the defendant, and utilizing alternative methods for a minor to give evidence (such as video recording of their statement).
The Supreme People’s Court also held an online half-day seminar on minor-friendly and gender-sensitive justice skills and knowledge which was facilitated by UNICEF and the Family Court of Australia. The online seminar connected 15,000 judges and court officials from 710 district courts, 63 provincial courts, 3 high courts and the Supreme People’s Court national court.
Mr. Nguyen Hoa Binh, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court. (Photo: CPV)
The online training was conducted by two senior Judges from the Family Court of Australia – Justice Judith Ryan and Justice Jan Stevenson – who have extensive experience in family law matters, including in handling matters involving child sexual abuse in family law cases, and were joined by Child Justice and Gender Expert, Ms Shelley Casey.
The creation, and now the national roll-out of the Family and Juvenile Court to 38 provinces since 2016 is a major milestone for children’s rights. The Family and Juvenile Court is a vital component in the prevention and response to sexual violence against minors. UNICEF encourages the continued roll-out to the remaining provinces. The new Family and Juvenile Court has dedicated judges who are appointed and trained to handle minors’ cases, thus enabling Court decisions to be responsive to the needs of each individual minor and ensuring that the minor’s best interests are a primary consideration.
Under the Penal Code the group of criminal offences relating to sexual abuse of minors has generated significant attention from the National Assembly. The Supreme People’s Court has expressed its commitment to work closely with UNICEF to help the Court system in Viet Nam play its role in contributing to ending sexual violence against minors, including through the development of a Judicial Council Resolution on handling child sexual abuse matters.
With key support from the EU, UNICEF has supported the Government of Viet Nam to strengthen minors’ access to justice in line with the Viet Nam’s international children’s rights obligations, with special attention to the unique needs of minor girls and boys, and vulnerable groups of minors. The international organization contributed to the piloting and national scale up of the Family and Juvenile Court and will continue to support with activities such as the international sharing of good practices and training of judges and court officers nationwide.
UNICEF is committed to working with all relevant Ministries (Education, Justice, Health, Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs) together with the Court and law enforcement authorities to team up together to bring legislative reform and international best practices that promotes prevention; that inspires a system-wide supportive response, that has professional social workers to support children as needed, and that ensures every child in Viet Nam is protected from all forms of violence./.
All comments [ 20 ]
Every year in America, 1.7 million cases involving a youth offender are brought before the court, equaling about 4,600 cases every day.
The juvenile justice system and programs have made incredible headway in methods and progress, especially considering the disorganization, severity, and ineffectiveness of its early days.
In the 1700s, children as young as seven could be tried in a criminal court, and if convicted, could serve time within an adult incarceration environment.
Even with a growing advocacy for juvenile rights in criminal proceedings, it wasn’t until the 1960’s that youth offenders were granted constitutional legal rights within the court system.
Today, policies and programs within the juvenile justice system are intended to recognize behavioral issues in youth offenders and target strategies for creating a reformed citizen.
Youth offenders are categorized by the severity of their issues, including committed offenses, risk level to public safety and individual service requirements.
Youths are incarcerated or placed under close supervision, following the deficit-based model of incapacitation, deterrence and retribution, and rehabilitation.
However, the system has closely examined its problem-focused design and began making changes towards a more positive view of youth.
Rather than focusing on what is wrong, some communities’ programs have started focusing on what is right.
By recognizing strengths and providing alternatives to criminal activities, many communities are finding ways to stop juvenile crime before it begins.
Many judges and policymakers are advocating for early intervention; however, once in the system, opportunities still exist for turning lives around, and many new juvenile justice programs are hoping to provide a positive opportunity for this country’s troubled youth.
A growing perspective in juvenile justice is that of positive youth development, concentrating on a youth’s “sense of competency, usefulness, belonging, and influence.
Rather than the traditional deficit-based model of highlighting an offender’s flaws and wrongdoings, positive youth development chooses to accentuate optimistic views, holding on to good characteristics and strengths to encourage a better way of living.
Adult court jurisdiction of juveniles does not deter juvenile crime
no decrease in crime rates, increased crime rates, or decreased crime rates but smaller decreases than in control jurisdictions.
Adult court jurisdiction results in poor rehabilitation of juveniles.
One study found an 85 percent increase in re-arrest rates amongst juveniles tried in the adult court system over those retained in the juvenile justice system.
an average 33.7 percent increase in re-arrest rates when juveniles were placed in the adult court system.
higher victimization rates amongst minors in criminal justice systems in both sexual and physical violence, and suggests a higher risk of suicide for youths in adult systems.
Minors in criminal justice systems have less access to education and other age-specific programming than those in the juvenile justice system, putting them at a serious disadvantage upon release.
Your comments