CRJU 160 Essay #1 63377212

There are a number of ways (both formal and informal) that offending can be
diverted away from prosecution – is this a good thing?

Statutory diversion, informal warnings and pre-charge warnings are all ways
in which offenders can be diverted from prosecution. The main purpose for diversion
is to achieve rehabilitation, reparation and to keep offenders, especially young
offenders, out of the criminal justice system to reduce reoffending. In addition to this
diversion reduces the volume and cost of prosecutions for less serious offences in
the court and justice system. Diversion is a policy used to transfer first time offenders
away from the criminal justice system into educational, counselling or treatment to
help the offender deal with past trauma and/or personal issues. However, diversion
can go extremely wrong if it is given to the wrong people as they could reoffend.

Diversions are programmes that implement strategies, such as treatment or

care programmes, to avoid offenders going through the formal prosecution process
(Latu & Lucas, 2008). These programmes are used as an alternative to criminal
prosecution and imprisonment for less serious offences to change the offender’s
behaviour to avoid reoffending and long-term incarceration. Research has suggested
that these treatment programmes can reduce substance use, criminal behaviour and
therefore recidivism (Sullivan et al., 2007).

Statutory diversion is when an offender is temporarily charged and then the

charge is removed once the offender has accepted responsibility and completes the
agreed conditions (Police, 2009). The main purpose of statutory diversion is to find
the balance needs of the victim and community for reparation and to reduce
reoffending by attaining rehabilitation through the offender (Police, 2009). Instead of
receiving a conviction, offenders are referred to counselling, education programmes
or treatment to help with their past trauma or personal issues that result in
committing crime.
Informal warnings, also known as “street” warnings, are not recorded
anywhere and there is no penalty or consequence. It gives the opportunity for low-
level, first-time offenders to accept responsibility for their actions, and use the
informal warning as a wakeup call (Police, 2013). These warnings are often used
inappropriately and inconsistently depending on location and police officers (Police,
1
CRJU 160 Essay #1 63377212

2013). However, the main disadvantage of this is if the offender commits a similar
crime again then the past offence would not be known as it was never recorded. A
similar but more formal warning to overcome this disadvantage would be Pre-charge
warnings.
Pre-charge warnings are not convictions; however, the warning is noted in
police records and therefore is considered when the offender reoffends. The purpose
of these warnings is to achieve rehabilitation and reparation (Police, 2009). The
advantages of this is that there is no charge filed but it is still seen on police records
if the person reoffends. Pre-charge warnings are also a larger deterrent than informal
warnings as an arrest and processing at the police station is still required (Police,
2009).

There are many advantages and disadvantages involving diverting people

from prosecution. The disadvantage to diversion is that when it fails individuals suffer
as tax dollars are wasted, victimisation is increased, and the criminal justice loses
credibility. It can also cause biases and corruption within the police (Vasiljević-
Prodanović, 2011). However, these disadvantages can be slightly overcome if police
consider the interest of the public, safety concerns, and the issues of victimisation
before giving the offender diversion (Police, 2009). Diversion can sometimes be
more expensive than formal prosecutions as if the offender recommits a crime they
later must be reprocessed and possibly incarcerated.
Research has proven that the stigma of court appearance increases the
likelihood of reoffending (Watt, 2003). Therefore, diversion is used to help reduce the
number of reoffending and give first offenders a second chance to adjust their
behaviour so they will not end up in the criminal justice system. Diversion also can
be tailored to individuals to ensure personal issues are addressed to help reduce
reoffending. Therefore, receiving diversion instead of prosecution can have a
positive long-term impact on their life, especially if it was a low-level first offence that
they instantly regret (Sapouna, 2011). This is because most offences that receive
diversions do not go on their criminal record and therefore it will not affect their future
career or aspirations. The offender also must acknowledge responsibility and admit
guilt before receiving diversion, therefore they have the ability to address the impact
on any victims or the community. Another advantage to diversion is that the volume

2
CRJU 160 Essay #1 63377212

and cost of prosecutions for less serious offences are greatly reduced in the court
and justice system (Police, 2013).

Overall, research has indicated that diversion has been more effective in
reducing recidivism than interventions used once the individual has been formally
prosecuted (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). The advantages in successful diversions
improve life circumstances for offenders, save tax dollars and provide reparation for
the victim and community. However, the main disadvantages of diversion that it can
be too lenient, and it considers the needs of the offender over the victim. As
discussed earlier, the other major disadvantage is that not all diversion and
programmes are successful. However, it is believed that diversions are more
beneficial for youth offenders than prosecution, as it improves their future and
reduces their chances of ending up in the criminal justice system (Sapouna, 2011).
Diversion can also be a very good and crucial part of a young adult’s life as it
reduces the amount of premature involvement in the criminal justice system and
reduces the number of out-of-home placements. To reduce offending, it is crucial to
maintain youth engagement and connectedness within the community and their
environment (Dembo et al., 2005)

To conclude, statutory diversion, informal warnings and pre-charge warnings

are used to deter people from reoffending while keeping their criminal record clean to
protect their future. By diverting offenders, especially youth offenders away from
prosecution it decreases the volume in the court and justice system and allows low-
level, first-time offenders to receive treatment to reduce reoffending. Although there
are some disadvantages, there are several advantages that prove that diversion is
more successful and beneficial for the victim, offender, community, and the criminal
justice system.

3
CRJU 160 Essay #1 63377212

Bibliography
Dembo, R., Wareham, J., & Schmeidler, J. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of a
policy change on a diversion program. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 41(3), 1-27.
Latu, A., & Lucas, A. (2008). Discretion in the New Zealand criminal justice system:
the position of Maori and Pacific Islanders. Journal of South Pacific
Law, 12(1), 84-93.
Police, N. Z. (2009). Adult diversion scheme policy. New Zealand Police.
Police, N. Z. (2013). Pre-Charge Warnings fact sheet. New Zealand Police.
Sapouna, M., Bisset, C., & Conlong, A. M. (2011). What works to reduce reoffending:
a summary of the evidence justice analytical services Scottish
Government. Retrieved February 6, 2016 from http://www. gov.
scot/resource/0038/00385880. pdf.
Sullivan, C. J., Veysey, B. M., Hamilton, Z. K., & Grillo, M. (2007). Reducing out-of-
community placement and recidivism: Diversion of delinquent youth with
mental health and substance use problems from the justice
system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 51(5), 555-577.
Vasiljević-Prodanović, D. (2011). Police restorative caution. DANI ARČIBALDA
RAJSA ““ARCHIBALD REISS DAYS, 553
Watt, E. (2003). A history of youth justice in New Zealand. Court in the Act, 6.
Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on
recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal justice and behavior, 40(5), 497-
518.