{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011374407582938388, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037914691943127963, 'mean_word_length': 5.478527607361963, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Diversion From Youth Courts in Five Asia Pacific Jurisdictions

Since the 1970s, there has been a trend to move away from punitive and retributive approaches to reintegrative practices. This article provides an account of how young offenders in five Asia Pacific jurisdictions are diverted from being prosecuted in the youth courts and of to where they are diverted. The five cases demonstrate that diversionary measures in the Australasian jurisdictions tend to be more restorative in their practices than are those in Chinese-dominated jurisdictions, which adopt welfare responses. It is concluded that although there is some progress in the areas of decarceration and delegalization, the diversion goals of decategorization and deprofessionalization in Chinese-dominated jurisdictions have yet to be achieved. Such diversionary strategies carry the risk that many more young people committing minor offences may be subject to more intrusive measures and disguised social control in the name of diversion, welfare, or the prevention of future offending.