Do you know about "juveniles at risk of delinquency"?
On the October 31 broadcast of SBS's "Unanswered Questions," the program tracked the realities of "juveniles at risk of delinquency" and the "Juvenile Classification Review Center."
Young people who were put on trial simply because they were considered likely to commit a crime stood before the camera. Describing the Juvenile Classification Review Center where they spent time, they remarked, "It is a juvenile detention center disguised under the name of a Juvenile Classification Review Center."
A juvenile at risk of delinquency refers to an individual between the ages of 10 and 18 who has not committed a crime, but who has become subject to protective dispositions under the Juvenile Act due to the perceived likelihood that they might commit one. Under this classification, youth stood in court for reasons as minor as running away from home, smoking, or wandering the streets at night.
Many of them were escorted to the Juvenile Classification Review Center under the pretext of protection and were detained there for a certain period.
Information about the direct notification system for youth at risk of delinquency was being widely shared among parents of adolescents beginning to engage in deviant behavior. It is chosen as a last resort to protect uncontrollable children from committing greater crimes.
As a result, some adolescents were placed in the Juvenile Classification Review Center following hearings triggered by their own parents' notifications. One informant shared that they had been placed in the facility following their father's notification and stated that they still cannot understand their father's actions.
The child's father explained that he chose the notification system because he had no other way to turn his drifting child around. However, he drew attention by recalling his thoughts as he watched his child being separated from him and escorted away immediately after the hearing ended: "I thought, 'Something went wrong here. I wanted to ask them to give my child back.'"
Contrary to the expectation that the child would return changed, the child engaged in even more deviant behavior out of a sense of betrayal by their family, which only worsened the father-child relationship.
Recently, this father and son even got into a physical fight, leading both to face legal punishment for assault on a lineal ascendant and child abuse, respectively.
Another youth, who was sexually assaulted by adult men claiming to offer help after running away from home, was detained despite the family's missing person report and subsequently housed in the Juvenile Classification Review Center.
Labeled a juvenile at risk of delinquency simply for having run away from home, the child was placed alongside youth who had committed crimes without any separation, despite being a victim, and was sentenced by the court to six months of entrusted custodial care and two years of probation.
After returning home, the child blamed themselves for everything and even engaged in self-harm. The child, who had run away because they enjoyed spending time with friends and then could not return home out of fear of being scolded as that time lengthened, ended up becoming a victim of sexual crimes. Even as a victim, the child could not disclose this fact to the outside world and was forced to bear the stigma of having been sent to a juvenile detention facility due to wearing a smartwatch to monitor nocturnal activities, despite the facility not being a juvenile detention center.
In contrast, it came as a shock that the 14 male perpetrators are currently undergoing investigation and trial without detention, on the grounds that there is no risk of flight.
Regarding this, an official from the Juvenile Classification Review Center stated the reason for the facility's existence: "Children with no delinquent history, such as violence or theft, are classified as simple at-risk youth. However, they often require urgent protection due to concerns such as suicide attempts or the risk of falling victim to prostitution. The emphasis is on protecting the students."
An expert expressed regret, remarking: "Children and adolescents who have suffered sexual exploitation are frequently notified as at-risk youth and detained. It is a way to separate a child from a hazardous environment. But was that truly the best choice? They are victims, yet they stand trial with the status of a criminal. This makes one wonder whether at-risk youth are being viewed as prospective criminals."
Children who received notifications following reports from the head of an orphanage complained that they were not the only ones to receive notifications at that institution, claiming that the orphanage head threatened them with the notification system. They also questioned whether they were easily branded as at-risk youth because they came from an orphanage.
In response, the orphanage head said: "The problem with an orphanage is that 100 children live together at once." The head explained that when children who refused to attend school rebelled despite persuasion and other children began to imitate them, there was no choice but to use the notification system as a last resort.
The head added: "I would have done the same even if they were my biological children. Doing nothing is neglect and abandonment," noting that after utilizing the notification system, there is currently not a single child who skips school.
While some agreed with the actions of the orphanage head, others expressed concern. An official from an orphanage pointed out: "If they had truly caused social disruption by committing crimes or continually engaged in such actions, I would not oppose using the notification system. However, these children did not cross that line."
The official also lamented: "If the children had more people around them to lean on, it might not have come to the point of a notification," calling the practice of stigmatizing children as at-risk youth when they have not even committed a crime an excessively violent method.
Addressing the system for at-risk youth and notifications, an expert noted: "It is an anachronistic concept. The era when the Juvenile Act was enacted in 1958 is vastly different from today."
However, a legal professional countered: "Is there an alternative if the law on at-risk youth does not exist? If systems capable of protecting children in crisis are established first, state intervention should gradually step back and be minimized, but the reality is not yet there."
Suggestions were also raised regarding the need for a shift in public perception toward at-risk youth. An expert remarked: "For the past 70 years, the role and responsibility have been dumped solely onto the judiciary. There are alternatives. This is an issue that must be resolved through the combined deployment of various welfare support systems and community resources where the child resides."
Another expert pointed out: "There is also no verification showing that the at-risk youth system is effective. Other overseas jurisdictions protect children through education and welfare after verifying that such systems are ineffective."
In response to opinions that multiple government agencies must work together to find solutions, the Crime Prevention Policy Bureau under the Ministry of Justice stated its stance: "We maintain our direction toward reform, which is to limit excessive dispositions. We plan to actively support related legislative discussions going forward."
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.