Why Can’t Juvenile Offenders In Ghana, Sentenced To Probation Orders Offered Intervention Programmes To Address Their Criminogenic Needs?

Ghana's criminal justice system like most others the world over has made some provisions for a juvenile justice system purported to address the challenges posed by juvenile antisocial and offending behaviour to public safety, the victims ,to themselves and their families. There has always been good reason in separating the services offered by criminal justice system delivery systems to children and juveniles from that of adults. It is an international responsibility to our children, given the emphasis on the promotion of their welfare needs, deemed as paramount at all times.

This welfare principle is echoed by our twin legislations of the children's' act 1989 and the juvenile justice act 2003 (act 653). Dealing with children and juveniles who come into conflict with the law has never been an easy road in travel in view of their complex specific emotional, behavioural, psychological , mental health and physical needs. Child development theorists confirm the several challenges that daily confront children and young people as they strive to grow and develop into responsible adults and indeed law-abiding citizens of their communities.

Our juvenile justice legislation acknowledges these challenges and therefore makes the relevant and appropriate provisions in section 29 of its act, as to how juvenile offenders should , if not must be dealt with within the court system, especially in terms of sentencing. For the purposes of this discourse, my emphasis will be on section 29 (c)- ''release the offender on probation as provided for in section 31'' of the juvenile justice legislation.

This section (31) provides that (1) '' a juvenile court may grant or amend a probation order made by it or any other court if it considers it in the best interest of the juvenile to do so.'' (2) '' circumstances such as the nature of the offence, the character, antecedents and home surrounding provided in the social inquiry report shall be considered by the court when granting or amending a probation order''. (6) ''a juvenile offender under probation shall be under the supervision of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the district where the juvenile offender resides''.

Please note the emphasis on the word 'supervision'. The question now is what is the theoretical and practical conception and understanding of a probation order, and that what is to be the expected implications and impact of this kind of sentencing and or court disposal? Probation order in general terms, fits into the framework of diversion strategic approach to sentencing, as a mechanism or credible alternative to imprisonment.

It is best practice to impose such an order only within the circumstances of minor offences and as within juvenile justice administration on juveniles whose misdemeanours do not in any way pose significant risks to public safety, their victims and to themselves. Thus probation order provides a framework within which the antisocial behaviour of the juvenile is to be adequately addressed.

It provides for the probation officer to target those criminogenic needs of the juvenile offender as should have been captured in a pre-sentence report and presented to the court. It is important to remind practitioners here that such a report is never a welfare report as may pertain in family court proceedings, where the report is described and can be referred to as a social inquiry report.

The difference as pointed on several occasions during my opportunity to facilitate the training of practitioners is that, the sentencing court report goes beyond the social circumstances of the juvenile offender. As somewhat indicated in section 31 (2) of the juvenile justice act,2003, this is a report which amongst others, should address the nature of the offence, attitude to the offence, the circumstance(s) of the offence and the offender's attitude to the victim etc.

It is best practice for such a report to include a care or supervision plan to serve as the framework or the tool of intervention programme to address the juvenile offender's anti social behaviour or offending behaviour, in supporting and assisting the juvenile offender develop a much more acceptable cognitive thinking skills, reasoning and positive lifestyle. In Ghana, although the sentencing courts provide the opportunity for juvenile offenders to receive the needed assistance and support to chart new ways of living, develop new positive social skills to cope with the many challenges they face , as provided for by the juvenile justice legislation section 31 (6).

Clearly it must be noted, acknowledged and appreciated that the legislation has not made this provision for 'a window-dressing exercise' or just for the purposes of mere morality. The intention of the legislation l must stress is to ensure that trained and qualified practitioners discharge their responsibilities and care of duty towards ' the lost sheep', children and young people who have become victims of societal prejudices, economic , social and political oppression, marginalisation and vulnerability in assisting and supporting them regain their place in community life as responsible and law-abiding citizens.

Indeed this explains why practitioners need to take their roles and duties seriously enough in ensuring they acquire and demonstrate the relevant and appropriate professional practice skills, knowledge and expertise in working with children and juvenile offenders who come to the notice of the criminal justice system.

The current and on-going practice of treating probation orders as if they are an extension of a conditional discharge by probation offers in our juvenile justice delivery and administration system in Ghana is unprofessional, unacceptable and smacks of a slap in the face of best practice approach to quality service delivery. Probation order should and must be interpreted to mean what it entails both in theory and practice globally.

This should mean our probation officers working with juvenile offenders should go back to basics, undertake those assessments of the criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders , as it can provide the credible elements for supervision or care plans in their pre sentence reports to the courts, with the knowledge and understanding that these reports are to serve as providing advice and guidance to the courts so as to inform their sentencing.

As the supervisors of the juvenile offenders' court order, probation officers should and must seek to promote the welfare needs of their supervisees or clients, in a manner that empowers them to confront their own negative behaviour, develop new and acceptable skills which can support and assist them stay clear of re-offending or recidivism.

This means the Ghanaian probation officer following up with the supervision or care plan , devise strategies and approaches in offering new hope of alternative lifestyles to their clients. As a reminder to practitioners, these strategies of approach should and must encompass the needed offence-focused work of intervention as: cognitive behaviour modification therapy, victim awareness and empathy work, positive role modelling, problem solving techniques and methods, family therapeutic intervention initiatives, anger/ conflict management, building self-esteem, self-value, substance misuse intervention therapy and trade-skills training and education just to mention a few.

Anything short of this rethink, is a betrayal of children, juveniles , their families and the public who come into conflict with the law, for whom the courts have wisely given the opportunity to be empowered through professional assistance and support to address their chaotic lifestyles and offending in a structured framework of intervention l dare say however that our probation officers working with these client group are yet to be up to their role, duty and or task, given they are not adequately resourced ,trained and skilled enough with the relevant and appropriate tools vital and necessary in delivering quality, evidence –based, effective and efficient best practice services to our young offenders , as a professional respond to the demands of sections 27 (diversion from offending ) and section 31 ( probation intervention services) of our juvenile justice act, 2003. To borrow a typical phraseology of my university days, l ask 'ARE WE SAFE'?