Attachments
Executive Summary
The study was commissioned by Terre des hommes - Lausanne (Tdh-L) Jordan to gain a deeper understanding of how children experience the justice system, both legally and practically. Its purpose was to inform reforms, enhance institutional coordination, and promote a child-sensitive justice system that aligns with international standards, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The study employed a mixed-methods approach, which included a legal review of key legislation, qualitative inquiry through interviews and focus group discussions with various stakeholders and children.
Key Strengths of Jordan’s Juvenile Justice System
Jordan has made significant strides in establishing a juvenile justice system that prioritizes the welfare, rehabilitation, and reintegration of children in conflict with the law, aligning with international standards and human rights principles.1 The Juvenile Law No. 32 of 2014 forms a robust legislative foundation, embracing a restorative approach by explicitly banning the death penalty and life sentences for minors and ensuring private trials. This law mandates legal representation and the involvement of probation/social workers, and requires the separation of children from adults in detention.
A notable strength is the establishment of a specialized Juvenile Police Unit (JPD) within the Public Security Directorate, operational since 2011/2012, with trained officers whose mandatory involvement begins from the initial stages of a case.
Specialized public prosecutors are also mandated to handle juvenile cases, supported by detailed probation officer reports to inform their decisions.1 Furthermore, specialized juvenile courts were established in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa in 2014, with judges expected to consider the child’s best interests. Aftercare provisions are legally mandated through the Juvenile Aftercare System issued in 201, and a formal case management methodology has been adopted by the Ministry of Social Development (MoSD) and Family Protection Department (), with ongoing training and procedure development.
Significant Challenges and Gaps in Implementation
Despite these legislative advancements and policy intentions, persistent challenges in the practical application of the juvenile justice framework often create discrepancies between policy and practice, impeding a fully child-sensitive system.
Access to Legal Aid: A critical gap lies in access to legal aid, which justice professionals frequently interpret as obligatory only at the trial stage and primarily for felony cases. This contradicts the Juvenile Law’s stipulation for legal counsel at “all stages of the investigation and trial”, leaving many juveniles without crucial legal support during the vulnerable pre-trial phase and in non-criminal matters.
Detention Practices and Conditions: The study highlights the overuse and extended duration of pretrial detention, which is often not treated as an exceptional measure, as recommended by international standards. Juveniles are frequently mixed with adults during transportation to court and in police station cells. One participant described being transported with ten adults and no separation. Within care and rehabilitation centers, there is inadequate internal segregation of juveniles by age, offense type, or risk level due to insufficient space and resources, leading to mixing of those involved in drug offenses with other juveniles. Accused and sentenced children are sometimes placed in the same institutions and participate in the same activities.
Referral Mechanisms: The consistent referral of all juveniles to specialized units faces practical challenges. Exceptions exist for serious crimes and when non-specialized security agencies are involved, and referral procedures are not always standardized across different institutions and crime types. Additionally, there is often a lack of consistent presence of a probation officer from the beginning of police investigations, with officers sometimes only showing up after procedures have been completed.
Training and Staffing: Inconsistencies exist in the content and delivery of specialized training for staff working with juveniles, particularly during the pre-litigation phase. Acute staff shortages, particularly in the areas of social work and psychology, are prevalent. A ratio of approximately 20 juveniles per social worker at some facilities makes individualized case management nearly impossible and contributes to a “Unpleasant” work environment for professionals.
Specialized Facilities and Prosecution Units: Beyond the three specialized juvenile courts in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa, juvenile cases in other nine governorates are handled by general Magistrate and First Instance Courts. Child prosecutors in these governorates often manage both juvenile and adult cases, impacting specialization.
Gender Sensitivity: Despite legal provisions advocating for impartiality, privacy, and segregation by gender and age, practical implementation reveals challenges. This includes the involvement of non-specialized police in drug cases, reported instances of abuse, mixed transportation, and inadequate internal segregation within some facilities due to limited space. For instance, one juvenile girl reported being charged with perjury after changing her testimony due to family pressure in a rape case and was denied bail, remaining in detention without a lawyer.
Aftercare Programs: The national aftercare system experiences inconsistent activation, insufficient funding, and critical shortages of specialized staff. Engaging families effectively also poses difficulties. Existing programs are often perceived as entertainment-focused rather than rehabilitative, dependent on temporary funding, and lacking qualified specialists, particularly psychologists.
Case Management and Data Quality: The application of case management procedures can be routine, lacking true specialization, and is hampered by fragmented data systems and inadequate physical infrastructure. Social inquiry reports, crucial for judicial decisions, are often criticized for their poor quality, lacking detailed information and well-justified recommendations, functioning more as a standardized form than an informative document. The “Mizan” electronic system, used by the Ministry of Justice, does not include data for cases settled before reaching courts, hindering a comprehensive overview.
Data Collection and Oversight: There is a significant lack of systematic, reliable, and disaggregated data on juvenile offending, detention, and the application of alternative measures. Discrepancies and inconsistencies exist in data shared by different ministries due to varying indicators and methods of disaggregation. Furthermore, independent oversight and complaint mechanisms for children in detention are lacking, with calls for an independent body to monitor detention facilities.
Youth Perspective and Mental Health: Experiences of juveniles reveal fear and tension when interacting with justice officials. Studies indicate a profound psychological impact of detention, with 57% of surveyed youth experiencing moderate to severe depressive symptoms and 3% reporting frequent suicide ideation.8 Academic stress is also high among incarcerated youth, with nearly half experiencing high levels.
Consolidated System-Level Recommendations
To translate the law’s child-centered ambitions into consistent practice across offenses and governorates, three overarching system-level recommendations emerge:
• Enhance Inter-sectoral Coordination and Establish a Unified Case Management System: Implement a comprehensive, mandatory inter-sectoral coordination framework, formalizing collaboration protocols and establishing a unified, child-centered case management system across all agencies dealing with juveniles, from initial contact to post-release. This system should ensure a consistent, holistic approach to each child’s journey through the justice system, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all partners.
• Institutionalize Diversion and Alternatives to Detention: Systematically integrate diversion programs and alternatives to detention, ensuring their consistent application and judicial oversight, to reduce unnecessary incarceration and promote community-based rehabilitation.
• Establish a Comprehensive Data Collection, Analysis, and Monitoring System: Develop and implement a central, regularly updated, and audited national database using harmonized juvenile justice indicators across all relevant governmental and non-governmental entities. This system should track all stages, including informal resolutions and program effectiveness, to inform evidence-based policy. Alongside this, an independent body with a clear mandate should monitor and audit detention facilities and programs to ensure accountability and compliance with national and international standards.