Effectivity of Sanctions (From The Future of the Juvenile Justice System, P 297-322, 1991, Josine Junger-Tas and Leonieke Boendermaker, et al., eds. -- See NCJ-133019)

• NCJ Number: 133041
• Author(s): W Heinz
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 26 pages
• Sale Source: ACCO Tiensestraat 134-136
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: Belgium
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. A paper from an international conference on the future of the juvenile justice system, May 29-31, 1989, in Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands.

Annotation

Following a review of the development of penal measures in West Germany including juvenile penal law, this paper examines the effectiveness of informal juvenile sanctions (diversion) compared to formal processing and sanctions.

Abstract

Based on evaluative research, the government of the Federal Republic of Germany is expanding the kind and number of noncustodial sanctions available in general criminal law. In juvenile law, the emphasis is on education and rehabilitation. This increase in noncustodial sanctions has not contributed to any measurable worsening of recidivism rates. Alternatives to imprisonment for serious offenders indicate that the usual criminological prediction models and the factors of inadequacy on which they are based have tended to overestimate the risk of recidivism. Informal sanctions (diversion) have proven to be as effective or more effective than custodial dispositions. Alternatives to imprisonment in West Germany include the extended and greater use of existing noncustodial penalties and the development, testing, and implementation of new noncustodial sanctions. The extension of voluntary community service, victim-offender reconciliation, and restitution would be useful in juvenile criminal law as well as in general criminal law. 57 references and appended tabular data