In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

_6_ Police Diversion Measures for Juveniles at Risk Karen A. Jo e Laidle r Philosophy an d Debate s ove r Diversio n What i s diversion ? Ho w doe s i t work ? Doe s i t work ? Althoug h thes e questions seem simple enough, the answers are more complex and must be understood i n particular historical , cultura l an d socia l contexts . A t a broad level , diversio n i s a strategy designe d t o diver t offender s fro m the criminal justice system. In some instances, it is used as a pre-arrest mechanism t o kee p offender s fro m officiall y enterin g th e crimina l justice syste m suc h tha t a t th e tim e o f detection , th e polic e d o no t pursue a n arrest. Offender s ca n also be diverted after arrest , a t the pretrial stage, with th e charges being "bound over", an d dependent o n th e offender's abilit y t o sta y fre e o f arres t fo r a specifi c period . Offender s may be diverted eve n late r in th e crimina l justic e process a t th e poin t prior to or after sentencin g or even during release from a n institutiona l sentence (Spoone r e t al. , 2001). Although th e intent o f diversion, a t any point i n the process, is t o move offender s awa y from th e crimina l justic e system, wha t precisel y are they being diverted to? In some instances, offenders ma y simply be diverted awa y fro m th e syste m wit h th e hop e tha t the y wil l no t ge t into troubl e an d ge t arreste d again . Thi s typ e o f diversio n involve s handling th e cas e informall y throug h non-interventio n o r "doin g nothing". Thi s for m o f diversio n i s th e dominan t approac h use d i n dealing with juveniles, as evidenced by police studies showing that onl y a small proportion of the cases coming to their attention result in arrest (Horwitz, 1995 ; Ezell, 1995) . This approac h i s consisten t wit h Schur' s (1973) proposal o f radica l non-intervention . 54฀KAREN ฀A.฀JOE ฀LAIDLER฀ However, i n othe r cases , offender s ar e diverte d t o alternativ e community-based programmes , operate d by a variety o f agencie s fro m the police to social welfare to community organizations. This is a second type o f diversion , an d ha s bee n th e subjec t o f muc h controvers y an d debate. On the one hand, advocates of this form o f diversion argue tha t these alternative programmes can address offenders' presenting problems in a non-stigmatizing and less formal manner, an d consequently, reduc e the likelihoo d o f labeling and further offending . I n this way, diversio n acts as a crime prevention strategy . On the other hand, critic s perceiv e diversion ca n hav e unintende d effects , an d becom e ye t anothe r mechanism fo r organizin g an d controllin g offender s bu t i n a non custodial environment . Fro m thi s standpoint , th e offende r wh o agree s to being diverted , i s stil l under official , albei t les s formal control , an d is subject t o a number o f rules and conditions . If any of these rules ar e violated or the offender doe s not comply with the diversion programme, he o r sh e ca n win d u p bein g processe d throug h th e forma l syste m o n the origina l charges . This possibilit y raise s othe r lega l concern s abou t procedure an d du e proces s (Feld , 1999 ; Backes , 1995) . Contro l agent s counter argue that th e implicit threat o f formal processing is the majo r means o f ensurin g complianc e wit h th e diversio n order . Yet , i f th e offender wa s simpl y release d (a s in th e...

Share