Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond

Volume 9, Issue 1, March 2022, Pages 79-86

© 2021 Udayan Care and SAGE, Article Reuse Guidelines
https://doi.org/10.1177/23493003211033089

In Focus

Theoretical and Practical Challenges to Stop

Recidivism Among Juveniles: Three Cases Studies
of Male Juveniles in Karachi, Pakistan

Abdullah Khoso 1 and Umbreen Kousar 2

Abstract
In Pakistan, research (within academia and outside of it) lacks discussion
and analysis of the policy, legal, administrative, institutional issues,
challenges and barriers in addressing recidivism among juveniles. Therefore,
this article’s primary aim is to understand the different factors that prevent
children from recidivism; or instead, they contribute to juveniles’ developing
tendency to re-offend. Three children between 15 to 18 years of age were
interviewed at the superintendent of the Youthful Offender Industrial School
(YOIS) in Karachi; also, an interview was conducted with the Director
Reclamation and Probation, Sindh. The findings reveal that partial legal and
institutional provisions and arrangements exist to address recidivism.
However, these provisions are not implemented to stop children from re-
offending. The analysis also shows that detention exists, but they did not have
rehabilitation programmes, whereas community-based rehabilitation did not
exist. Instead, these places (institutions and communities) educate children on
how the crimes are being committed. The study’s findings suggest serious
policy measures to deal with recidivism among male juveniles through
diverse programmes and training and sensitisation of the police and judicial
officials and the community members.
Keywords
Juvenile justice, children’s rights, recidivism, repeat offenders, Pakistan

1 University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2 The National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Corresponding author(s):
Abdullah Khoso, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 50603,
Malaysia. E-mail: abdullahkhoso@hotmail.com

Introduction
In the criminal justice system, recidivism is ‘defined as the reversion of an
individual to criminal behaviour after he or she has been convicted of a prior
offence, sentenced, and (presumably) corrected’ (Maltz, 1984, p. 1).
Recidivism, or the act of re-offending, is commonly reported among children
across the world (Ryan & Otonichar, 2016; Solomon et al., 2016; van der
Put, 2013). The concept is used in social reintegration programmes to
measure the success and achievements by successfully assisting and
reintegrating the offenders. In these programs, the offenders are provided
with help and supervision, which helps them stop re-offending and getting
back to criminal behaviour (UNODC, 2018). However, the reportage and
analysis of Pakistani juveniles’ re-offending behaviour (tendency) and the
relevant measures (legal, policy and administrative) are lacking in the
literature. In December 2005, 2,368 and in December 2019, 1,424 juveniles
were reported (SPARC, 2020), which shows a significant decrease in the
children’s population in detentions places. However, neither Pakistan’s
criminal justice system nor NGOs have any mechanism to record the number
of repeat children offenders, especially its causes within the criminal justice
system and society.
Moreover, the body of research (Ahmed & Murtaza, 2016; Shahidullah,
2017) on juveniles in Pakistan is growing, which has drawn attention to
abuse, torture and violence against children in the criminal justice system of
Pakistan. The research particularly highlights the abuse of children in police
and prison authorities’ hands and highlights the protections of
institutionalised practices of torture and abuse (Anwar et al., 2015; Khoso &
Yew, 2015; Khoso et al., 2018). These scrutinies do not include the
theoretical and practical challenges and issues within Pakistan’s criminal
justice system in the context of why children become repeat offenders.
Therefore, this case study based research is conducted to address the
theoretical and practical gaps that result in recidivism among juveniles in
Karachi, Pakistan.

The Legal Framework and Institutional Mechanism to

Prevent Recidivism
In 2000, Pakistan had introduced the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance
(JJSO) (ILO, n.d.), which could not offer protection or guarantees on every
aspect of the administration of juveniles justice system in light of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), especially its
Articles 37 and 40 (United Nations, 1989). These articles urge the states to
provide extraordinary protections to children who come in conflict with the
law. The treatment of juveniles is also offered in General Comment No 10
(2007) (Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice) and the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (known
as the Beijing Rules). The existing legal protections in the JJSO were not
implemented. In 2018, the JJSO was repealed by the Juvenile Justice System
Act (JJSA). The Act (under Section 6(1)) is comparatively better in
providing safer passages to children to stay away (to divert) from the
detention through bail under the custody of a suitable person under the
supervision of a probation officer. It also provides that the investigation
officer conduct the social investigation with a probation officer or a social
welfare officer (SPARC, 2018). It further provides for the disposal of
juveniles’ cases through diversion in Section 9(4): With the person’s consent
against whom the offence is committed, the Juvenile Justice Committee will
dispose of a case. The disposal could resort to different means of diversion,
which include ‘(a) restitution of moveable property; (b) reparation of the
damage caused; (c) written or oral apology; (d) participation in community
service; (e) payments of fines and costs of the proceedings; (f) placement in
juvenile rehabilitation centre; and (g) written and oral reprimand’ (SPARC,
2018).
In Section 14, the Act suggests the juvenile court send the juvenile (if the
case proved against him or her) to the rehabilitation centre or on probation.
In section 15(c), it provides for releasing the juvenile ‘on probation for good
conduct and place such juvenile offender under the care of a guardian or any
suitable person or such juvenile rehabilitation centre established or certified
for this Act for any period not exceeding the period of confinement awarded
to such juvenile’ (SPARC, 2018).
The JJSA provides a mechanism to prevent recidivism by educating them
in established rehabilitation (detention) centres such as the YOIS. However,
it does not provide for the rehabilitation of the juveniles outside of the
detention places. Generally, three major categories of social integration
programs are practised and observed, which include ‘(a) prison-based
rehabilitation programs; (b) reintegration and aftercare programs delivered
upon release; and (c) non-custodial, community-based programs’ (UNODC,
2018, p. 5). However, in Pakistan’s legal framework for administering the
criminal justice system and juvenile justice system, the non-custodial
community-based reintegration and aftercare programs (delivered upon
release) lack or do not exist (details of these programmes see Grey, 2020;
UNODC, 2018). The probation system is non-custodial, but it has inadequate
capacity, skills and resources to meet the probation system’s basic
requirements as claimed by the Director Reclamation and Probation, Sindh.
And also, the police and judiciary do not involve them in cases related to
juveniles. With extremely limited resources (i.e., human and financial) and
many cases, especially adults, the officer calls in the probationers every
month to visit the probation officer’s office and mark the attendance. Thus,
the officer never goes to meet (as required in section 13(a) of the POO) the
probationer in the community and learn about his or her social and other life
activities. The Director said, ‘In one district, the average one officer works
to deal with parole and probation. The officers can hardly complete
documentation of the parolees and probationers. They cannot get time and
money to visit the probationers’. The above legal and administrative
arrangements categorically suggest how easily recidivism is possible and
why preventing recidivism is not possible.

Methods
For understanding the contexts and perspectives of recidivism among
Pakistani juveniles, the qualitative case study approach has been used. A
single person or unit is intensively and systematically studied or examined
(Heale & Twycross, 2018). The case studies are conducted to evaluate and
deeply analyse a case (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). With the help of the
superintendent of the Youthful Offenders Industrial School (YOIS) in
Karachi, in January 2018, three juveniles, one by one, were interviewed in
the superintendent’s office in the presence of none. Each interview lasted
around one hour. Children were informed about the purpose of the research
and their willingness to be part of the interview. Besides, the researcher
interviewed the Director Reclamation and Probation, Sindh and the
Superintendent of the YOIS. Both were interviewed in their offices. At the
time of interviews, the YOIS had around 100 under-trial male juveniles. Of
all these, only three were repeat-offenders. They had come back to prison for
other alleged offences. The YOIS is in Karachi city, which host around 15.4
million people in 2018 (World Population Review, n.d.).
Findings
Case Study 1: Ali Hussain, 15, has never been to school. It was the third
time Hussain had come to the YOIS in Karachi. At 12, the first time, he came
in May 2015 for three months. Hussain was arrested from the bicycle
repairing shop in Nazimabad (Karachi) and was brought to Nazimabad
police station for snatching a mobile phone. He said, ‘I was beaten with
sticks by drunken police officers at the station’. After ten days of humiliation
and torture at the station, the first time, he was produced before the court, and
then he was sent to the YOIS. Hussain said, ‘During the trial of the case, the
judge said to me, if I confess the crime, he will release me. I did so’. Upon
the release, Hussain was repeatedly asked by his parents to quit the bad
company. Therefore, he went back to his hometown for a few days to stay
with his grandfather in the Kohat district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
province of Pakistan. He also did not meet his friends. He claimed that he
never used drugs and alcohol. In October 2015, after one month of his
release, Hussain was arrested by the police from a playground in Nazimabad
under section 392 (robbery) of the PPC (the Pakistan Penal Code of 1860)
and 23(1)(a) Sindh Arms Ordinance of 2013. He spent 17 months at the
YOIS. Hussain was beaten at the station. He informed, ‘I do not know why
the police beat me, and they also did not ask me to confess. They just beat me
many times. I was kept for 14 days’. After a few months, ‘the judge said to
me to confess the crime so that he will give a brief sentence, so did I’. He
spent 17 months in the YOIS. After the release, Hussain’s mother engaged
him at a car mechanism workshop.
After a couple of months of release, in October 2017, Hussain was
arrested along with an unlicensed pistol from his car mechanism shop, badly
beaten for 14 days, and then was produced before the court. After that, he
was still in the YOIS. Hussain claimed that he was never part of any
reintegration program during the time he spent in the YOIS and the outside
(after the first time release), and no one had either called or visited him to
guide him to stay away from committing a crime. For both the times, he
confessed to the judicial officers’ saying so that he could be released as
early as possible. He added that once arrested, he had become a criminal at
all times in the police and people’s eyes. He said that the family members
also did not treat him with respect. He informed, ‘I was an uneducated
person, and I could not find the company of educated people. Therefore,
repeatedly, I joined the company of boys who were involved in drugs and
bad things’.
Case Study 2: Ibrahim, 17, has five siblings, and he has never been to
school. It was the second time he was admitted to the YOIS Karachi. The
first time, in May 2017, in the late evening, he was sitting with his friends in
his locality in Landhi. The police came and searched him. He was found with
an unlicensed pistol. He was taken to Landhi 4 police station, kept there for
three days, and was then produced before the court. The police did not beat
him. During the trial, Ibrahim said that ‘the judge said to me that if I confess
the crime, he shall award me minor punishment and low fine’. He confessed
the crime and spent around six months in the YOIS. After the release, all
asked him to stay away from the company of evil people. However, Ibrahim
did not care about it. He shared that his friends were often involved in a
robbery and mobile snatching. Upon release from the YOIS, Ibrahim had
joined a towel factory in Landhi. He informed, ‘After 25 days of my release,
Landhi police came to my house and arrested me in robbery and possessing
an illegal pistol and after that, I am still in jail’. The police demanded money
from Ibrahim’s father for letting Ibrahim go free, and they also tortured him.
After 12 days, Ibrahim was produced before the court. Like Hussain, for the
first time, Ibrahim deserved to be released on probation since they were
arrested for minor bailable offences, but they were not.
Case Study 3: Jan Naeem, 16, has never been to school. The first time
Naeem was admitted to the YOIS in April 2015. After 25 months, he was
released upon completing the sentence for keeping a weapon without a
license. In 2015, Naeem was 13–14 years old; he could not get a permit.
Less than 18 years old people in Pakistan cannot get a license. Naeem shared
that somebody had informed the police that he has a pistol. Therefore, they
raided the house and arrested him along with the gun. He was brought to the
Darkhshan police station, kept for 14 days, and then the judge sent him to the
YOIS. He said the police did not beat him. Naeem was released on bail and
then again was arrested because the case had proved against him. After
completing six months of his sentence in the YOIS, he was released. After
two months of his release from the YOIS, the Ferozabad police had arrested
him in front of his house in an alleged robbery and keeping a weapon. This
time, he claimed he was severely tortured to confessing the crime. He was
still in the YOIS. He informed, ‘My parents always asked me to stay away
from the company of bad boys, and I always thought of doing so but could not
happen’. Considering the JJSA, Naeem could be released on probation for
the first time, but he was not.

Analysis: Grey Area

The Role of Police as the Gatekeepers and Diverter
The police are gatekeepers. They have an extremely critical role in
preventing children from recidivism (Wilson et al., 2018; Zapolski et al.,
2018). In the JJSA, in minor offences, the police could divert (by providing
bail to) a child from the detention centre and could reduce recidivism rates
among juveniles. However, unfortunately, once a child is arrested and sent to
detention, he comes on the police watch list whenever any crime occurs in
the jurisdiction. As per section 7(2) of the JJSA, the police officer not below
the rank of sub-inspector shall investigate the case with the support of a
probation officer or social welfare officer. However, the probation officers
are never informed of cases involving children, as mentioned by the
Direction Reclamation and Probation, Sindh. As Hussain claimed, once a
person is arrested or sentenced, that person is always considered part of the
locality’s crime. It is against the principle of innocent until proven guilty
(Pennington, 2003). The case studies reveal that the police did not play a
role in diverting them; instead, they inflicted violence and abuse. They kept
them in the police locks quite contrary to section 6(1) of the JJSA. They kept
them in the police lock-ups for many days without judicial remand
(approval). However, this study does not prove or suggest that the police’s
misconduct resulted in recidivism among juveniles—as Zapolski et al.
(2018) and Kane (2005) found in their studies.

The Rehabilitation Inside the Detention Places and Societal

Behaviour
Across the country, detention centres (prisons, juvenile wards, borstal
institutions and others) are considered the wrong places where children learn
antisocial activities (SPARC, 2020). In three case studies, children did not
speak a single word about the life they lived in the YOIS and the researchers
also did not learn their experiences because they could avoid providing facts
for fear of the worst consequences. The conditions of detention centre,
whether juvenile wards, borstal institutions, or offenders’ schools, are not
suitable for rehabilitating a juvenile (SPARC, 2020). Most of the children
spend time as under-trial inmates, and during this time, the prison authorities
lacked appropriate programs to re-orient about a better life without crimes.
However, the JJSA suggest diverting a child from detention centres to
rehabilitation in the community (see section 9 of the JJSA). However, a study
(Khoso & Yew, 2015, p. 146) noted that a juvenile in the YOIS shared that
‘he learned how to become a good thief, pick-pocketer and mobile
snatcher…most of the inmates had easy access to cigarettes and naswar
(tobacco) and sometimes, hashish’. What happens inside the detention places
also contributes to recidivism, where positive social, psychological and
economic rehabilitation programs are absent. Still, the practices are contrary
to children’s rights and their rehabilitation needs.
Conclusion
The analysis of three case studies of juvenile inmates (in the YOIS) in light
of the legal framework and institutional mechanisms and systems reveals that
partial legal and institutional provisions and arrangements exist to address
recidivism, which are not applied or implemented to stop children from re-
offending. The analysis also showed that detention-based rehabilitation did
not exist; instead, these places are to train and educate children about how
the crimes are being done and create more hatred and insanity among them
towards society. After the release, reintegration and aftercare non-custodial
(mostly community-based) programs did not exist. The treatment of children
in the court also shows that judicial officers lacked knowledge about taking
measures (in light of the JJSA) to prevent children from returning to a
criminal life. Three interviews’ content also reveals that the police’s
attitudes and practices (in the community and at the police stations) towards
children (who once completed their sentences and returned to their
communities) have contributed to recidivism among these juveniles. Overall,
the findings suggest that serious measures are needed to deal with recidivism
among juveniles through diverse programmes for rehabilitation and
reintegration and sensitisation and training of the police and judicial officials
and the community members.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Ghulam Madni Memon, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in District
Naushahro Feroz, the Government of Sindh, for his help in conducting interviews with juvenile inmates
and the Director Reclamation and Probation Sindh.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Abdullah Khoso https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0426-5543

References
Ahmed U., , & Murtaza A. (2016). Factors affecting juvenile delinquency in Punjab, Pakistan: A case
study conducted at juvenile prisons in Punjab Province. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 7(4), 372.
Anwar S., , Khan S. E., , Chaudhry A. G., , Khan K. E., , & Sultana S. (2015). Exploring socio-cultural
factors of recidivism in juvenile delinquents: An anthropological perspective. Science
International, 27(1), 817–819.
Creswell J. W., , & Creswell J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th Edition). SAGE Publications.
Grey T. (2020). Aftercare and institutionalised children: A literature review of international best
practices and lessons for SAARC countries. Institutionalised Children Explorations and
Beyond, 1(2), 204–220. Crossref.
Heale R., , & Twycross A. (2018). What is a case study? Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(1), 7–8.
Crossref. PubMed.
ILO. (n.d.). Juvenile justice system ordinance, 2000 (XXII of 2000).
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/81784/88955/F1964251258/PAK81784.pdf
Kane R. J. (2005). Compromised police legitimacy as a predictor of violent crime in structurally
disadvantaged communities. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 43(2), 469–498.
Crossref.
Khoso A., , & Yew V. W. (2015). Recognising invisible structural violence on juveniles: A case of
Pakistan. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 141.
Khoso A., , Khoso P. A., , & Khushk G. M. (2018). Factors influencing juveniles’ perception of the
police in Karachi, Pakistan. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 59–74.
Maltz M. D. (1984). Recidivism. Academic Press.
Pennington K. (2003). Innocent until proven guilty: The origins of a legal maxim. Jurist, 63, 106.
Ryan E. P., , & Otonichar J. M. (2016). Juvenile sex offenders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(7), 67.
Crossref. PubMed.
Shahidullah S. M. (Ed.). (2017). Crime, criminal justice, and the evolving science of criminology in
South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Springer. Crossref.
Solomon D., , Åsberg K., , Peer S., , & Prince G. (2016). Cumulative risk hypothesis: Predicting and
 preventing child maltreatment recidivism. Child Abuse & Neglect, 58, 80–90. Crossref. PubMed.
SPARC. (2018). The juvenile justice system act 2018. https://sparcpk.org/images/Pubs-
Thumb/Salient%20Features%20of%20Juvenile%20Justice%20System%20Act%202018.pdf
SPARC. (2020). The state of Pakistan’s children in 2019.
https://www.sparcpk.org/SOPC2019/JJSO.pdf
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
UNODC. (2018). Introductory handbook on the prevention of recidivism and the social
reintegration of offenders(Criminal Justice Handbook Series). United Nations.
van der Put C. E. (2013). The prevalence of risk factors for general recidivism in female adolescent
sexual offenders: A comparison of three subgroups. Child abuse & neglect, 37(9), 691–697.
Crossref. PubMed.
Wilson D. B., , Brennan I., , & Olaghere A. (2018). Police-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future
delinquent behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–88. Crossref.
PubMed.
World Population Review. (n.d.) Karachi population. http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-
cities/karachi/
Zapolski T. C. B., , Banks D. E. Lau, , K. S. L., , & Aalsma M. C. (2018). Perceived police injustice,
moral disengagement, and aggression among juvenile offenders: Utilising the general strain theory
model. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 49(2), 290–297. Crossref. PubMed.
Sections
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. The Legal Framework and Institutional Mechanism to Prevent
Recidivism
4. Methods
5. Findings
6. Analysis: Grey Area
1. The Role of Police as the Gatekeepers and Diverter
2. The Rehabilitation Inside the Detention Places and Societal
Behaviour
7. Conclusion
8. Acknowledgement
9. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
10. Funding
11. ORCID iD
12. References