Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Family Conferencing for Juvenile Offenders: A Singaporean Case Study in Restorative Justice

  • Published:
Asian Journal of Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Restorative justice has been or is being adopted in many parts of the world, including countries in Asia. In the case of Singapore, restorative justice was adopted by the court system in 1997 as its guiding philosophy in its approach towards juvenile offenders. This article traces the adoption of restorative justice by the Juvenile Court in Singapore and the use of family conferencing in the light of the principles of restorative justice. It concludes by suggesting areas where the family conferencing system in Singapore can be improved, and possible lessons for other jurisdictions considering adopting family conferencing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Braithwaite (1999: 2) qualifies his statement that “Restorative justice has been the dominant model of criminal justice throughout most of human history for all the world’s peoples” somewhat in his later work (Braithwaite 2002: 5), where he says:

    While restorative justice may have been the dominant model of justice, it simplifies too much to say that restorative justice remained the dominant practice …. Most premodern societies sustained side-by-side restorative traditions and retributive traditions that were in many ways more brutal than modern retributivism.

  2. More recent impetus for restorative justice has come from the international arena: Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), art 40; and Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters (2002).

  3. The Community Court (which deals with certain offenders such as those between 16 and 21 years old), set up on 1 June 2006, has also committed itself to the “dual principles of restorative justice and rehabilitation”: Subordinate Courts of Singapore 2006: 28. Ho (2007: 1328), who was Senior Minister of State for Law at the time, said: “The whole idea of the Community Court really is restorative justice, to take a problem-solving approach, to tap community resources. It is not just to punish but to try to solve the problem at hand.” Restorative practices have spread beyond the justice sphere to school settings where this is used in peer mediation and disciplinary offences (see Chan and Ismail 2007). Restorative practices are also used in “beyond parental control” complaints, in care and protection order cases, and in the Guidance Programme for youths-at-risk.

  4. John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming was published in only 1989 (Braithwaite 1989); and the highly influential book by Howard Zehr was published in 1990 (Zehr 1990).

  5. “Family conferences” have recently been renamed as “juvenile case conferences” by the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act (2011). No explanation was given for the change in nomenclature, which could possibly be because the system practised in Singapore differs from what is practised in other countries under a similar name.

  6. Restorative justice has little role to play outside of the juvenile justice system in Singapore: Public Prosecutor v UI (2008). The Juvenile Court in Singapore deals with offenders who are below 16 years of age, but in some situations, the case could be heard by the High Court instead even if the offender is below 16 years old: Children and Young Persons Act (2001): section 33.

  7. Restorative justice has also been termed a “communitarian model” (Yong 1996a) and “transformative justice” (Ozawa 2002) in Singapore.

  8. Restorative justice has been critiqued for having, among other things, multiple and unclear goals, unspecified means to achieve the various objectives, few or no dispositional criteria, and vague standards for evaluation (Ashworth 2001; von Hirsch et al. 2003).

  9. Defined as those aged 7 years and above and under 16 years of age. Children under the age of 7 years are immune from criminal liability (Penal Code 2008: section 82). For more information, see Chan (2011).

  10. Descriptions of successful family conferences conducted in Singapore can be found in Magnus et al. (2003) pp. 63-69. Two of these conferences described were convened as a consequence of a “beyond parental control” complaint and one as a consequence of the juvenile being charged with a criminal offence.

  11. At the time of writing, US$1 is approximately S$1.24.

  12. Grievous hurt is defined by section 320 of the Penal Code (2008).

  13. The facilitators are counsellors from the Family and Juvenile Justice Centre of the Subordinate Courts. However, the possibility of the Juvenile Court Magistrate facilitating the family conference is expressly provided for in paragraph 4(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Family Conferencing) Regulations (2001). This provision should be amended.

  14. Caution must be used in drawing conclusions based on the small sample size.

  15. The fine was increased from S$1,000 by the amendments made in 2011.

  16. The procedure may be modified to suit the individual circumstances of the case if needed: Children and Young Persons (Family Conferencing) Regulations (2001): paragraph 5(5).

  17. Some of the statistics reported in the 1995 study were corrected in the 1997 study. Caution should be used in interpreting the results considering the small sample size involved.

  18. The recidivism rate is calculated on a 3-year time frame and includes juveniles placed on the Guidance Programme, probation and offences committed in juvenile homes run by the Government.

  19. “HEAL” stands for Healing, Empowering And Linking. “Project HEAL” commenced in early 2003, in conjunction with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports: Subordinate Courts of Singapore 2004.

  20. The proximate variables include factors such as the juvenile offender’s level of remorse and behaviour in court; parental willingness to supervise him or her; and the Probation Officer’s confidence in working with him or her. Other factors considered are the offence type; the juvenile’s risk of recidivism such as a history of past offences, defiant or aggressive personality, parents’ marital status and parenting styles; and any diagnosis of mental disorder.

  21. Adolescence-limited offenders are those whose errant behavior is a passing phase that will eventually diminish with maturity, while life-course persistent offenders are those with chronic, persistent criminality: see Moffitt 1993; Nagin et al. 1995. One local study has found four factors to be significant predictors of adolescent recidivism: father’s criminality, history of running away from home, history of aggression, and age at first criminal offence (Ang and Huan 2008).

  22. 33% of 1995 sample and 23% of 1997 sample: see Table 2.

  23. 4% of 1995 sample and 3% of 1997 sample: see Table 2

  24. 6% of 1995 sample and 3% of 1997 sample: see Table 2.

  25. 18% of 1995 sample and 35% of 1997 sample: see Table 4.

  26. 3% of 1995 sample and 3% of 1997 sample: see Table 4.

  27. 5% of 1995 sample and 3% of 1997 sample: see Table 4.

  28. This legislative instruction existed from the founding of the Juvenile Court in 1949 in section 42 of the Children and Young Persons Ordinance (1949).

  29. This view is also shared by the various Juvenile Court Magistrates, who do not see any inconsistency between the two approaches: Public Prosecutor v WQ (a minor) (2008); Public Prosecutor v Y (a minor) (2003); Public Prosecutor v AN (2004); Pereira Denise Esther v Public Prosecutor (2001). The restorative approach has even been used to allow for a more severe sentence than would be justified under the welfare approach: Public Prosecutor v WQ (a minor) (2008) (4 months’ detention at the Singapore Girls’ Home was imposed to be “commensurate with the nature of the offence”).

  30. Public Prosecutor v Y (a minor) (2003); Public Prosecutor v AN (2004); Pereira Denise Esther v Public Prosecutor (2001).

  31. For a thought provoking essay on the spread of victim policies and whether these can be “transplanted” across jurisdictions, see Sebba 2008.

  32. See also Lu 1999; Wong 1999.

  33. One study of a sample Chinese population of delinquents and non-delinquents has found evidence that negative shaming can encourage and continue delinquency while “the values of forgiveness, interpersonal harmony and family values” can prevent recidivism (Wong 2001: 114).

  34. The Chinese comprised 74.1% of the Singapore population in 2011. Other ethnicities comprised Malays (13.4%), Indians (9.2%) and Others (3.3%): Singapore Department of Statistics 2011.On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the traditional emphasis of Chinese culture on harmony between persons makes restorative justice ideally suited to the Chinese, see van Wormer 2008; Wong 2008 and Lee 2008.

  35. In a survey of those who had commercial disputes resolved through mediation, it was found that (Boulle and Teh 2000: 300):

    Singapore disputants look to their mediators for more guidance during the mediation process and support the argument that the Singapore culture requires mediators to be more than facilitators and process managers. Overall satisfaction may therefore be related to mediators assuming a more interventionist role.

    Compare with Lee and Teh (2009) who are more nuanced in their approach in arguing that the Western model of interest based mediation can be successfully applied in a culturally sensitive way.

  36. A survey carried out in 1999 to assess the level of confidence of the community towards the Subordinate Courts in the administration of justice found that 86% of the respondents (made up of lawyers, educationists, social service personnel and community groups) opined that “the Juvenile Justice model has met their expectations in restoring the juvenile”: Subordinate Courts of Singapore (1999). However, it is not stated if and how the Juvenile Justice’s restorative justice model was explained to the respondents and what restoring the juvenile means.

References

  • Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2008). Predictors of recidivism for adolescent offenders in a Singapore sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(7), 895–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibald, B. P. (2005). Coordinating Canada’s restorative and inclusionary models of criminal justice: the legal profession and the exercise of discretion under a reflexive rule of law. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 9, 215–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2001). Is restorative justice the way forward for criminal justice? Current Legal Problems, 54, 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2002). Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 578–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulle, L. A., & Teh, H. H. (2000). Mediation: Principles, process, practice. Singapore: Butterworths Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 25, 1–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. H. M. (1995). The legal system of Singapore. Singapore: Butterworths Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, W. (2008). Introduction. In W. Chan (Ed.), Support for victims of crime in Asia (pp. 1–8). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, W. (2011). Juvenile offenders in Singapore. British Journal of Community Justice , 8(3) (Winter 2010/11)

  • Chan, W. O. M., & Ismail, Y. (2007). Towards a restorative school: a Singapore perspective. A paper presented at the 10th International Institute for Restorative Practices World Conference in November 2007. Available online at http://www.iirp.org/hu07/hu07_martin_yusoff.pdf.

  • Chen, W. (2011). Several points of view on system of criminal reconciliation. Available online at http://www.criminallawbnu.cn/english/showpage.asp?channelid=070&pkID=318.

  • Choi, A., & Lo, T. W. (2004). Fighting youth crime: a comparative study of two little dragons in Asia (2nd ed.). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignan, J., & Marsh, P. (2001). Restorative justice and family group conferences in England: current state and future prospects. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Restorative justice for juveniles: conferencing, mediation and circles (pp. 85–102). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, J., & O’Mahony, D. (2006). The vengeful victim? Assessing the attitudes of victims participating in restorative youth conferencing. International Review of Victimology, 13(2), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Awa, M. S. (2000). Punishment in Islamic law: a comparative study (3rd ed.). Plainfield: American Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garkawe, S. (2008). The (human) rights of crime victims do not necessarily infringe the rights of accused and convicted persons. In W. Chan (Ed.), Support for victims of crime in Asia (pp. 51–80). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, E. S. (2005). Restorative Justice. Pakistan Legal Decisions (Journal), 57, 108–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harkrisnowo, H. (2008). Victims: The forgotten stakeholders of the Indonesian criminal justice system. In W. Chan (Ed.), Support for victims of crime in Asia (pp. 262–288). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, P. K. (2007). Speech in parliament. Singapore Parliamentary Debates, 27 August, col. 1328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, C. (2002). Directions of juvenile justice reforms in Singapore. A paper presented at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) 118th International Training Course. Available online at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pages/PublicationsRMS.htm.

  • Kittayarak, K. (2004). Restorative justice: the Thai experience. A paper presented at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) 123rd International Senior Seminar. Available online at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pages/PublicationsRMS.htm.

  • Koshy, S. (2008). Case for restorative justice. The Star (1 August).

  • Lee, S. C. (2008). Compatibility between restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture. In K. van Wormer (Ed.), Restorative justice: across the East and the West (pp. 113–121). Taoyuan: Casa Verde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Teh, H. H. (Eds.). (2009). An Asian perspective on mediation. Singapore: Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legislative Council of Hong Kong (2004). Paper for the House Committee Meeting, Report of the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice System, LC Paper No. CB(2)2895/03-04. Available online at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr03-04/english/hc/papers/hc0625cb2-2895e.pdf.

  • Lim, L. Y., & Liew, T. L. (1997). Court mediation in Singapore. Singapore: FT Law and Tax Asia Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, W. T. (2005). Services for young people and juvenile offenders in Hong Kong. In T. W. Lo, D. S. W. Wong, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Alternatives to prosecution: rehabilitative and restorative models of youth justice (pp. 257–278). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, C. (2000). Family group conferencing: cultural origins, sharing, and appropriation. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: new directions in community-centred child and family practice (pp. 15–30). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, H. (1999). Bang Jiao and reintegrative shaming in China’s urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 23(1), 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, G., & Lind, B. (2002). Reducing juvenile crime: conferencing versus court. Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice (Issue No. 69). New South Wales: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

  • Magnus, R., Lim, H. M., Mesenas, M. L., & Thean, V. (Eds.). (2003). Rebuilding lives, restoring relationships. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (2001). Family group conferences and reoffending. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Restorative justice for juveniles (pp. 243–263). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (2002). The role of shame, guilt and remorse in restorative justice processes for young people. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H. J. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative justice: Theoretical foundations (pp. 267–284). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesenas, M. L., & Lim, H. M. (2003). The juvenile court of Singapore. In R. Magnus, H. M. Lim, M. L. Mesenas, & V. Thean (Eds.), Rebuilding lives, restoring relationships (pp. 3–44). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Community Development. (1995). Report of the inter-ministry committee on dysfunctional families, juvenile delinquency and drug abuse. Singapore: Ministry of Community Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. (2009). Singapore’s second and third periodic report to the United Nations Committee on the rights of the child. Singapore: Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (2011). Juvenile Delinquents: Recidivism Rate. Available online at http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/ResearchRoom/ResearchStatistics/JuvenileDelinquentsRecidivismRate.aspx.

  • Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33(1), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozawa, J. P. (2002). Transformative justice: Psychological services in the criminal, family and juvenile centres of the subordinate courts of Singapore. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozawa, J. P. (2003). The family and juvenile justice centre. In R. Magnus, H. M. Lim, M. L. Mesenas, & V. Thean (Eds.), Rebuilding lives, restoring relationships (pp. 45–63). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. (2000). Searching for the roots of conferencing. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: new directions in community-centred child and family practice (pp. 5–14). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebba, L. (2008). Whither victim policies? A view from the crossroads. In W. Chan (Ed.), Support for victims of crime in Asia (pp. 81–112). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Department of Statistics (2011). Singapore in Figures 2011. Available online at http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sif2011.pdf.

  • Singapore Police Force (1997/1998). Singapore Police Force Annual Report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

  • Singapore Police Force (1999/2000). Singapore Police Force Annual Report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

  • Singapore Police Force (2001/2002). Singapore Police Force Annual Report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

  • Singapore Police Force. (2003). Singapore Police Force Annual Report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Police Force. (2004). Singapore Police Force Annual Report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (1996). Family conferencing in the juvenile justice process. Subordinate Courts Research Bulletin (Issue No.3). Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (1998a). The Singapore juvenile court. Judicare: A newsletter of the Singapore Judiciary (October/November issue). Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (1998b). An update on the impact of family conferencing on juvenile offenders and their families. Subordinate Courts Research Bulletin (Issue No. 16). Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (1999). Survey on public attitudes and perception of the Singapore subordinate courts. Subordinate Courts Research Bulletin (Issue No. 23). Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (2004). Juveniles @ Juvenile Court. Subordinate Courts Research Bulletin (Issue No. 34). Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (2006). Annual Report. Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tin, E. K. S. (1999). The four justice models: organised creativity in judicial administration. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 11, 377–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagg, J. (1998). Delinquency and shame: Data from Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 38(2), 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ness, D. W. (1993). New wine and old wineskins: four challenges of restorative justice. Criminal Law Forum, 4(2), 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wormer, K. (2008). Restorative justice: a bridge between east and west. In K. van Wormer (Ed.), Restorative justice: Across the east and the west (pp. 1–9). Taoyuan: Casa Verde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A., & Shearing, C. (2003). Specifying aims and limits for restorative justice: a ‘Making Amends’ model? In A. von Hirsch, J. V. Roberts, A. Bottoms, K. Roach, & M. Schiff (Eds.), Restorative justice and criminal justice (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. S. W. (1999). Delinquency control and juvenile justice in China. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. S. W. (2000). Juvenile crime and responses to delinquency in Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(3), 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. S. W. (2001). Pathways to delinquency in Hong Kong and Guangzhou (South China). International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 10, 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. S. W. (2008). Advocating the use of restorative justice for misbehaving students and juvenile delinquents in Hong Kong. In K. van Wormer (Ed.), Restorative justice: across the east and the west (pp. 11–31). Taoyuan: Casa Verde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, L.T. (2006). Project HEAL: our vision and our experience. A paper presented at the Symposium on Supporting Victims of Crime in the Asia-Pacific Region, May 25-26, Singapore.

  • Yong, P. H. (1996a). Speech at the Subordinate Courts’ Fourth Workplan 1995/1996. In S. P. Hoo, S. D. Lee, H. C. Phang, & K. O. See (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of Chief Justice Young Pung How (pp. 137–147). Singapore: FT Law and Tax Asia Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (1996b). Speech at the Opening of the Legal Year 1996. In S. P. Hoo, S. D. Lee, H. C. Phang, & K. O. See (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of chief justice Young Pung How (pp. 211–221). Singapore: FT Law and Tax Asia Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (1996c). Speech at the opening of the legal year 1995. In S. P. Hoo, S. D. Lee, H. C. Phang, & K. O. See (Eds.), Speeches and Judgments of Chief Justice Young Pung How (pp. 123–135). Singapore: FT Law and Tax Asia Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (1996d). Speech at the Seventh International Appellate Judges Conference in Ottawa, Canada. In S. P. Hoo, S. D. Lee, H. C. Phang, & K. O. See (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of Chief Justice Young Pung How (pp. 195–204). Singapore: FT Law and Tax Asia Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (2006a). Speech at the Subordinate Courts’ Sixth Workplan 1997/1998. In A. Lim, M. L. Kwek, S. Lim, W. S. Tan, G. T. Koh, E. L. D. Quek, W. J. T. Low, G. S. Teo, S. M. Loke, & J. Wong (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How (volume 1) (pp. 82–97). Singapore: SNP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (2006b). Speech at the Subordinate Courts’ Seventh Workplan 1998/1999. In A. Lim, M. L. Kwek, S. Lim, W. S. Tan, G. T. Koh, E. L. D. Quek, W. J. T. Low, G. S. Teo, S. M. Loke, & J. Wong (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How (volume 1) (pp. 181–204). Singapore: SNP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (2006c). Speech at Opening of the Legal Year 1997. In A. Lim, M. L. Kwek, S. Lim, W. S. Tan, G. T. Koh, E. L. D. Quek, W. J. T. Low, G. S. Teo, S. M. Loke, & J. Wong (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How (volume 1) (pp. 59–81). Singapore: SNP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. H. (2006d). Speech at Opening of the Legal Year 2002. In A. Lim, M. L. Kwek, S. Lim, W. S. Tan, G. T. Koh, E. L. D. Quek, W. J. T. Low, G. S. Teo, S. M. Loke, & J. Wong (Eds.), Speeches and judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How (volume 1) (pp. 410–420). Singapore: SNP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottsdale: Herald.

    Google Scholar 

Legislation and Treaties

  •  

Singapore

  • Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act. (2011). Act No. 3 of 2011.

  • Children and Young Persons (Family Conferencing) Regulations. (2001).

  • Children and Young Persons Act. (2001). Chapter 38.

  • Children and Young Persons Ordinance (1949). Ordinance No. 18.

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act. (1995). Act No. 39 of 1995.

  • Penal Code. (2008). Chapter 224.

The Philippines

  •  

  • Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. (2006). Republic Act No. 9344.

United Nations

  •  

  • Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters. (2002). E/2002/INF/2/Add.2

  • Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). A/RES/44/25.

Cases

  •  

  • Pereira Denise Esther v Public Prosecutor. (2001). Singapore Magistrate’s Court, 25.

  • Public Prosecutor v AN. (2004). Singapore Juvenile Court, 1.

  • Public Prosecutor v UI. (2008). Singapore Law Reports (Reprint), 4, 500.

  • Public Prosecutor v WQ (a minor). (2008). Singapore Juvenile Court, 4.

  • Public Prosecutor v Y (a minor). (2003). Singapore Magistrate’s Court, 3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, 469G Bukit Timah Road, Singapore, 259776, Singapore

    Wing-Cheong Chan

Authors
  1. Wing-Cheong Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wing-Cheong Chan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chan, WC. Family Conferencing for Juvenile Offenders: A Singaporean Case Study in Restorative Justice. Asian Criminology 8, 1–23 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-011-9122-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-011-9122-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation