Perceptions of Justice Involved Children on the Child Justice System in Nairobi County, Kenya

Abstract

Children seeking justice, interact with numerous agencies as they navigate through the justice system. They are more often than not subjected to a myriad of processes some of which are too complex and even traumatizing. Despite the existence of many international instruments guiding on the interaction between them and justice actors, children remain passive participants lacking agency and inclusion in matters affecting them. This makes it difficult for the justice system to respond appropriately to their needs. In Kenya there is a dearth of studies with regard to how children who have passed through the justice system experience and perceive it. The aim of this study was to find out how children experienced the system, its processes and practitioners. The sample size constituted 36 children aged 12-17 years drawn from remand homes, probation hostels, youth corrective centers and Borstal institutions. The participants were distributed across five focus group discussions which were guided by a semi structured interview tool that enabled children to share their experiences with police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, magistrates, probation, children and prisons officers. The findings indicate that children experience some justice actors as threatening, unemphatic, shaming, and could not trust them. With regard to the environments, the police station was described as the most scaring and unsafe while the court room was intimidating, too formal and sometimes oblivious to the distress children experience when seated in court. There was limited participation as children were not consulted or informed about various legal processes. There were also positive interactions with some justice practitioners. The study provided rich insights into the justice system from the eyes of the child. The findings can be used to institute reforms in the child justice system and promote therapeutic jurisprudence so as to enhance access to justice for all children.

Full text

The University Journal Volume 5 Issue 3 2023 ISSN: 2519 – 0997 (Print)
~ 1 ~
Perceptions of Justice Involved Children on the Child Justice System in
Nairobi County, Kenya
*Florence Mueni Muema, Stella Kemuma Nyangwencha & Margaret Njoroge
United States International University-Africa
Email: fxmueni@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Cite: Muema, M.F., Nyangwencha, S.K., & Njoroge, M. (2023). Children experiences of the
child justice system in Nairobi County, Kenya. The University Journal, 5(3), 1-16.
Abstract
Children seeking justice, interact with numerous agencies as they navigate through the
justice system. They are more often than not subjected to a myriad of processes some of
which are too complex and even traumatizing. Despite the existence of many international
instruments guiding on the interaction between them and justice actors, children remain
passive participants lacking agency and inclusion in matters affecting them. This makes it
difficult for the justice system to respond appropriately to their needs. In Kenya there is a
dearth of studies with regard to how children who have passed through the justice system
experience and perceive it. The aim of this study was to find out how children experienced
the system, its processes and practitioners. The sample size constituted 36 children aged 12-
17 years drawn from remand homes, probation hostels, youth corrective centers and Borstal
institutions. The participants were distributed across five focus group discussions which were
guided by a semi structured interview tool that enabled children to share their experiences
with police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, magistrates, probation, children and prisons
officers. The findings indicate that children experience some justice actors as threatening,
unemphatic, shaming, and could not trust them. With regard to the environments, the police
station was described as the most scaring and unsafe while the court room was intimidating,
too formal and sometimes oblivious to the distress children experience when seated in court.
There was limited participation as children were not consulted or informed about various
legal processes. There were also positive interactions with some justice practitioners. The
study provided rich insights into the justice system from the eyes of the child. The findings
can be used to institute reforms in the child justice system and promote therapeutic
jurisprudence so as to enhance access to justice for all children.
Key Words: Perceptions, Child justice system, Kenya, Justice, Children, Therapeutic
jurisprudence.
Introduction
Justice involved children are served by systems that have complex laws, legal structures and
procedures that can be beyond the comprehension of a young person (Richardson et al.,
2016). Adversarial court systems used by common law countries like Kenya are the most
complicated as the child in conflict with the law is tasked to proof their innocence while the
child victim is subjected to legal procedures to show their competence to testify (Bala et al.,
2001; Oraegbunam, 2019; Saunders et al., 2020). Like adults, children may have certain
expectations about the treatment they are likely to receive from each of the agencies they will

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 2 ~
interact with (Fine et al., 2019). Conversely, it is the lived experiences based on face-to-face
interactions and the procedures they are put through that shape their perceptions of the justice
system (Fine et al, 2022).
That said, various jurisdictions have enacted strategies aimed at creating a child friendly
justice system that buffers the child against the negative experiences associated with their
contact with the justice system (Richardson et al., 2016). In the USA for example, teen courts
are formal courts where cases relating to young people are heard by peers who also act as
jurors, defense counsel and judges (DeFosset et al., 2017). In South Africa, the welfare model
has facilitated the establishment of children courts where young people are taken through
informal, inquisitorial child-friendly procedures and welfare-oriented rehabilitation (Moyo,
2013). In Kenya, a new children Act was enacted in 2022, and envisions a child friendly
justice system. The children act has many provisions that attempt make the judicial
experience less stressful for children.
ix government agencies and actors are considered the custodians of the child justice system in
Kenya. These include; Police officers, magistrates, prosecutors, children officers, probation
officers, lawyers and prison officers. These agencies have different mandates that stipulate
their roles and manner of interaction with children. Joint services to justice involved children
are coordinated through the national council for administration of justice (NCAJ) which has a
standing committee on children matters (NCAJ, 2019). Despite this coordinating framework,
the child justice system in Kenya faces numerous challenges in case management and
coordinated responses to the psychosocial needs of children (NCAJ, 2019).
This paper is premised on the theoretical framework of therapeutic jurisprudence.
Therapeutic jurisprudence examines the law and how justice involvement can impact children
in positive or negative ways (Lens, 2017). Justice agencies who implement various statutes
have been granted by those laws discretionary powers that if not used appropriately can have
adverse effects on children. These mainstream agencies are required to use their mandates to
act in ways that promote the best interest of child. However, sometimes pursuit of
punishment and accountability for one‘s actions overrides treatment of the child‘s
criminogenic needs. This may result in stigma, exclusion, humiliation, shaming, and
exclusion from engaging in activities that other peers have access to (Motz et al., 2020; Perlin
& Lynch, 2018). Therapeutic jurisprudence is a theoretical model that provides justice
agencies with a lens through which they can use their legal mandates to help children
experience the system as helpful and one that is designed to meet their mental health needs
(Lens, 2017). The theory embodies aspects of psychology and social work which justice
actors can incorporate. These include dignity, empathy, taking child‘s views into
consideration and access to mental health services (Gavin, 2021).
There is a wide range of empirical literature on children experiences with the justice
professionals. Cavanagh et al. (2022) studied the attitudes and beliefs of 396 youth toward the
police. Their study found that negative perceptions towards police officers were linked to the
way the police treated them. Fine et al. (2019) found that when children have positive
interactions with police officers, they are likely to have positive attitudes towards them.
However, children have minimal knowledge about the role of prosecutors (Augsberger et al.,
2016). In Kenya the directorate of prosecution has developed prosecutor guidelines for
handling children matters. This is a step in the path to creating a child friendly prosecutorial
process (Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, (ODPP), 2020). However, there is lack
of published research on children views of prosecutors in the Kenyan context.

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 3 ~
Children courts are established by the children act, (2022), yet there are only two in the
country that can fit the basic criteria of a child friendly court. In the rest of the country, adult
courts are cleared for children matters with the alternative being having the cases heard in the
magistrate‘s chambers (Wangamati et al., 2019) In a systematic review of literature children
and families understanding of court processes, Saunders et al. (2020), found that most
children had no idea what was going on even though they were physically present in court
because no one simplified the process for them. Studies show that children‘s experiences of
probation officers play a role in their compliance to the conditions of probation (Fine et al.,
2019). Children officers provide child welfare services in Kenya. Wilson et al. (2020) in a
meta-synthesis of children‘s experiences with child welfare services established that children
found the workers too formal and that they feared sharing their feelings with them as they had
difficulties building trust.
Child justice practitioners are drawn from a variety of professional backgrounds. Therefore,
the manner of interaction with children may be influenced by the training the person has or
dictated by the legal roles and mandates of the agency. Research shows that gaining views
from children about their experience of the professionals and the services provided is critical
as it provides feedback to the system on aspects of it that are therapeutic and those likely to
be psychologically harmful (Saunders et al., 2020; Gearhart et al., 2021). When children
come into contact with the justice system either as offenders, victims or witnesses, they may
be treated as the invisible stakeholders, lacking agency and inclusion (Pealer et al., 2017).
This lack of voice is an infringement of the right to participation and makes the system blind
to their psychosocial needs (Creany, 2020). It also goes against article 12 of the United
Nations convention on the rights of the child which requires children to be involved in
matters affecting them (Augsberger et al., 2016). Conversely, listening to their voices can
help enhance administration and access to justice.
The aim of this study was to examine the perceptions of children on the effectiveness of the
child justice system in meeting their mental health needs. The study was a child participation
avenue for children to describe their interactions and experiences with various professionals
from the point of arrest to living in statutory institutions.
Methodology
The study was qualitative in nature and used focus groups so as to gain a rich description of
children‘s lived experiences at each stage of their justice journey. The sample size was 36
participants sampled from a larger population of children committed by courts to various
categories of institutions namely; remand homes, rehabilitation schools, youth corrective
centers, probation hostels and Borstal institutions. Stratified sampling was used to create
three strata and sampling frame of the three agencies that held the population of children
under study (children services, probation and prison services). The sampling frame contained
a directory of specific sites which hosted children. The authors used the admission ledger in
the selected sites to randomly select participants to the focus groups. There were 6-8
participants per focus group. Table 1 presents the distribution of participants.

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 4 ~
Table 1. Distribution of focus groups across institutions
Statutory Children’s
Institution
No.
of
FGDs
No.of
participants
Sex
Category
Age
Rehabilitation school
1
7
Females
In need of care and
protection and in
conflict with the
law
14-17
Borstal institution
1
8
Females
In conflict with the
law
15-17
Remand
1
6
Males
(4) and
Females
(2)
In need of care and
protection and in
conflict with the
law
12-15
Youth corrective &
Training centre
1
7
Males
In conflict with the
law
14-17
Probation hostel
1
8
Males
In conflict with the
law
17
Total -36
An interview checklist of open-ended questions was used to guide the focus groups. The
questions centered on participants interactions with the various justice actors and the
experiences while in the facilities and institutions.
Ethical Considerations
Authority to conduct the study was granted by the National Commission for Science,
Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). Authority to interview children was sought and
granted by the heads of all agencies. In order to adhere to the ethics of research with children,
two consent documents were developed. The first one was a consent form for managers in
charge of statutory institutions where children were interviewed as they have the legal
responsibility (parens patriae) over the children. The consent form outlined the importance of
not coercing any child to participate as well as the mechanisms in place to assist a child in the
event that the interview causes them any distress. The second document was the children
assent form. This form was written in a child friendly language and highlighted voluntariness
of participation and what the study required them to do. Children were informed that they can
withdraw from the study anytime if they felt distressed by the questions. The researcher
requested that the staff members not be present during the focus group discussions so as to
ensure that children were free to share their perceptions of the justice system without any
intimidation.
Availability of counselling services was made known for those who needed psychological
support. In order to protect confidentiality and avoid causing psychological distress, children

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 5 ~
were not required to talk about their offences or the reasons for contact with the system.
Child centered techniques such as mindfulness exercises, ice breakers, and movement were
used during the focus group sessions.
Data Analysis
The interviews and focus group were all audio recorded. The audio recorded interviews were
then transcribed. Each focus group script was transcribed separately. Once transcription has
been completed, the researcher scanned through each interview script while listening to the
audio and correcting any typing mistakes and filling in any missing information. Each
transcript was then accorded an identity number. A blend of deductive and inductive coding
was used. Deductive coding was considered appropriate as it would ensure that the data
answered the research questions (Saldana, 2008). There was a set of predefined codes in a
code book. Inductive coding ensured that new codes could be created and safeguarded
against loosing valuable information not reflected in the predetermined codes. Coding was
performed several times, re-examining, renaming and merging those that were similar. The
codes were further grouped into categories. Once the categories were in place, themes that
matched the content of the categories were generated.
Results
The findings presented in this section are a reflection of children experiences at each stage of
the justice journey.
Experiences at apprehension and police stations
The police station was the first point of contact with the justice system. The participants
shared their experiences in police cells and on their interactions with police officers.
Frightening
For many children in conflict with the law, apprehension was experienced as a highly
distressful incident. Most of them shared that they had been arrested in full view of the
public. One participant shared that the police came for him at school and took him
immediately after school assembly so other children saw him being whisked away. Police
officers were perceived as scary and intimidating. Others recalled being slapped, handcuffed
and insulted. One female participant aged 17 years described her experience: ―I was a few
meters from my home when I was ambushed. They were four male officers. I tried to run,
and the police fired in the air and I froze‖ (FGD-2).
Anxiety and fear
The police station was experienced as a stressful, chaotic place. Participants reported physical
symptoms such as accelerated heart- beat, shaking, stress, headaches and stomach upsets. All
children reported that their finger prints were taken and one child mentioned that her
photograph was taken. This participant recalled being frightened and described her
experience:
They took pictures of me from different angles and circulated on social media. I
knew this because while at the station I borrowed a phone because mine had
already been confiscated. When I texted my friend, she asked me where I was
because she had seen pictures of me on WhatsApp. I told her to send me the

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 6 ~
picture and I was very shocked. It‘s the pictures the police took of me. Is that a
right thing for them to do? When I asked the police, they told me that I had stolen
many things so they had put the pictures there so that whoever has lost things
could identify me. That was the reason they gave me (FGD-2).
Sharing cells with adults
Most of the children were placed in the same cells as adults. In the cells they were
intimidated by adults who forced them to reveal why they were there. Some said that they
were not able to sleep and sometimes their food would be taken by adults. One participant
described her experience:
My mother came to visit me and brought me some food and a bed sheet to cover
myself. At night, the drunk women took the sheet and pushed me from the only
mattress in the cell. I spend the whole night standing (FGD-1).
In one focus group, children shared about interacting with serious criminals. One child shared
her experience:
During my first day in the cell I met some drunk woman called Rastafaray. She
was arrested because of fighting. So, when I was praying she would say she‘s the
devil and I shouldn‘t pray, she really scared me. She would shout and scream at
me (FGD-2).
Corporal punishment
The children described other stressful experiences at the police station. Some explained that
they had been beaten, verbally insulted by some police officers. A 17-year-old participant in a
youth remand institution described his experience at police cells:
When I was in the police cell, I had a friend there. You see the first time you enter
the cell, other inmates try to show you who is in charge. So, one old man started
fighting my friend. This police officer came in and said we are the ones who fight
old men. I tried to tell him I did not do anything, but he did not want to hear. He
started beating me with a pipe that was attached to a metal tube. I was beaten so
much I couldn‘t walk properly (FGD-4).
Female respondents described incidents of sexual harassment by police officers. Those who
shared about this were girls in Borstal and rehabilitation schools. One 16-year-old female
participant described how sexual harassment takes place:
Very early in the morning they wake us up to go and wash the OB room. When
you are bending washing the floor, they touch your buttocks. Who do you report
to? .They are holding guns, they will beat you, and you are there with a case, so
you just keep quiet (FGD 2).
Friendly Police Officers
The participants were also asked if there were helpful experiences with police officers or at
the police station. Majority said that police officers allowed them to contact their family and
to be brought personal items and food and this served to calm them. Children considered
officers who talked to them without shouting and who encouraged them to tell their truth in

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 7 ~
court as helpful. Female police officers were perceived as more empathetic than male
officers. One participant who had a positive view of police officers for their guidance
explained that the officers: ―Used to come and preach to us in the cells and tell us to have
peace of mind. That helped me to relax a bit‖ (FGD -5). Other helpful acts by police officers
included, buying the child food, assisting them in how to plead, and checking on them in the
cells and allowing them to get out of the cell for a few minutes to bask in the sun.
Experiences in Court
The children provided information about their subjective experiences of the courtroom, court
officers and interacting with perpetrators.
Fear of magistrate
To gain a comprehensive understanding of children perceptions of the courts and judicial
officers, the participants were asked to share their experience of the court. Most described
courts as too formal and strict. Almost all children experienced fear of the court. They were
afraid of face to face encounter with a judge or magistrate. One participant expressed her
fear:
The court I go to the judge looks at you in a very scary way. One time I was in
court. There was this magistrate who had scary way of looking at people. When
my case was called, the magistrate looked at me with those scary eyes. I became
very frightened till I started nose bleeding (FGD-2).
Fear of facing the perpetrator
Another issue that emerged during the focus group discussions was that most of the times, the
children had to face their perpetrators in court. In virtual courts, it was distressing for some
child victims to look at the face of the perpetrator on the screen as one child stated:
―When I sat on the computer, I saw his face. I froze. When they asked me whether he is the
one I said he is not because he was staring at me‖. Another respondent added ―You see the
person who did something bad to you on the computer and you forget what you wanted to
say‖ (FGD-3).
Anxiety over case outcome
Not knowing the possible outcome of their case was also a source of anxiety for some
respondents. Those in police stations and remand homes in particular were apprehensive due
to not knowing the outcome of their case. A participant described how this anticipation
anxiety builds up:
At the court cells, they usually take you to a room and tell you how your case will
go on and they say things will go bad, especially since your case is serious you
will be jailed for 14 years (FGD-4).
The participants reported lack of sleep due to anxiety. To others, the information given to
them in court regarding committal to institution was not clear and they were too afraid to ask
questions. This was substantiated by a participant who had this to say:

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 8 ~
You got to court and every time they say you wait. You go again and they tell
you to stay here in remand for another 14 days. No one tells you what will
happen. You don‘t know if you are waiting to go to jail or to go home. Even when
you are given food you don‘t feel like eating. When you put up your hand in
court, you are told to put it down (FGD 3).
Lack of interest by Pro-bono Lawyers
A number of children had interacted with lawyers representing them. Two participants shared
their experience with lawyers:
They first assess how one looks like if you are shaggy or look poor, they don‘t
help you. They don‘t bother much with you and how you feel. Also, if your case
takes too long, they don‘t come to court (FGD-1).
A good number of participants who said they did not have legal representation especially
those in conflict with the law said that they had been forced to plead guilty by police officers.
One of the respondents who was already serving his sentence explained:
I was in court where I accepted that I was guilty but when I reached industrial
area remand, I was told that I had pleaded not guilty. So I was very confused
because I had accepted my crime but it was written that I hadn‘t. So they started
saying I am playing games with the court‖ (FGD-5).
Expressing their Needs to the Court
The study established that the court environment and the procedures in court were all driven
by legal actors leaving little room for children to participate by communicating their
psychosocial needs. According to the participants, the environment did not allow them to
participate fully and inform the court of their psychosocial needs, whether in virtual or in
person sessions. They felt that the court was not aware of their experience at police station or
remand because it did not ask. A 16-year-old participant in one of the focus groups said this
about expressing her needs to court:
When you are in front at court where you stand with the police officer so that you
don‘t run away, you are asked if you have something to say, then you hesitate,
then you put your hand up, the police officer behind you pushes your hand down,
the judge does not see it because they are busy writing things (FGD-5).
To some of the children, being denied the opportunity to talk in court made them feel isolated
and that their fate was in the hands of the people talking on their behalf.
Complicated roles of justice actors
Some participants perceived the court as confusing as there were many actors whose role they
did not understand. For example, children in FGD-3 thought that the prosecutor was the court
clerk ―Because he reads files and calls people‘s names and reads to you what you have done
and where you will be jailed‖. Others described the prosecutor ―The lady in a black suit who
talks a lot of English‖. Magistrates were being referred to as ―Judge‖ and they are always
writing things‖. Some children did not seem to know the difference between a probation
officer and a children officer.

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 9 ~
Helpful ‘in camera’ Court sessions
Some children shared that their cases were heard in the chambers where only a few people
would be present. Those who had their session in chambers reported feeling more confident
to express their needs. There were those who recounted that they would be brought to an
open court and sit in until all the matters for adults are mentioned or heard, then they would
be heard last. One participant explained the anxiety associated with sitting through court
sessions and listening to hearings of adult cases: ―Sitting there and listening to people being
jailed, you get scared that you will also be jailed‖ (FGD-1). Another one shared about their
discomfort with the CCTV cameras in court. In the words of this participant: ―The cameras
stressed me because when you are talking, it is like there are people in there watching you so
when you speak, I feel like they are laughing at you‖ (FGD-2).
Perceptions of Probation and of Probation Officers
Children in Borstal institutions and remand homes had interacted with probation officers.
Some had positive experiences while others had negative encounters. The children presented
an image of the probation officer as a law enforcer, and at the same time an adviser. Those
who found probation officers helpful explained that the officer had written a report for them
and talked to their parents and explained to them the outcome of the case. Some children said
that the probation officer gave them advice to use the time of residing at the institution to
change their behavior. The children in remand institutions talked about experiencing anxiety
as they had to wait to find out the recommendations made by officers. One respondent who
found probation officers unhelpful qualified their views by saying: ―The probation officer
scared me because they were very harsh. I remember they told me that I resembled the devil
and I look scary that even other children can fear me. I felt really hurt by her words‖ (FGD-
4).
Others expressed disappointment at probation officers for having given them false
information regarding the institutions they were committed to. The participants said they had
been told by their officers that they were going to boarding school only to find that they are in
a correctional facility. A 15-year-old participant in a Borstal institution described what she
was told:
I was told I was going to a boarding school. Even my mother wanted to buy me
things for school but the probation officer told her not to buy because I will be
given many things there. The probation officer told me that at borstal, we would
get nice clothes and we would be going for games and sightseeing trips, only for
me to come here and find it is a prison (FGD-2).
Perceptions of Children Officers
Children who had been to rescue centres, children remand homes and rehabilitation schools
were able to describe their experiences. To some, the children officer was described as a good
person who ‗never leaves your side‘. However, the experiences with support staff in
institutions run by the directorate of children services were mixed. Some children found
remand homes to be a good place that provided for their basic needs. Contrariwise, there
were those who had bad experiences in remand as this one participant explained:
They would beat the small girls mostly, saying that they are the ones who know
about boys. They would beat you when you wet the bed. They tell you that you

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 10 ~
that you will not wet beds the way you want. Then in the morning, they make you
do press-ups. If you are unable, they beat you and say since we used to steal and
carry people‘s things, we should have no problems doing the press-ups (FGD-1).
There were also those who felt a sense of helplessness because the children officer had
refused their parents to visit them in the institution. In all the three institutions, the
participants expressed a need to attend formal schooling noting that the education provided at
the institutions was not enough. Others shared that they were forced to repeat classes as the
institutions did not have all the levels of classes. Another participant described children
officers as people who did not tell their parents the truth. She explained: ―When we went for
tracing, they told my parents that they will be taking me to school, but I have stayed here for
years and have not gone to school, I am tired of living here‖ (FGD-3).
Experiences in Borstal Institutions and Youth Corrective Centers
Participants served by Kenya prisons service were those in youth remand, Borstal institutions
and youth corrective training centres. Since the focus groups took place during the pandemic
lockdowns, some of their experiences included being isolated for long periods in a room
where one could only get out for a few minutes of sun. Most found the experience distressing.
The prison officers were described as strict and punitive, but the welfare officers and
chaplains were helpful. When asked to talk about the negative experiences, the participants
reported that sometimes they would be given collective punishment which most found unfair.
This was exemplified by one youth:
Here when one person makes a mistake, you are all punished. You are beaten, and
it is not the normal beating, it is too much. They do not listen to you if you are
innocent. You are told to do squats until your legs hurt (FGD-4).
Youth in focus groups held in Borstals and youth corrective centers spoke about their
perception of the uniforms they wore:
We don‘t like this uniform because it looks like the one worn in by people in
Mathari hospital. When you walk outside the compound with this uniform people
out there think you did very bad things and you are mad (FGD-4).
However, they also reported positive experiences at these institutions. They appreciated the
vocational training provided. They stated that some prison officers are friendly and genuinely
care about their welfare.
Stigma due to involvement with the justice system
The young people were apprehensive over their return to the community. In all the focus
groups participants stated that they feared that they will be rejected or met with hostility by
the community and especially their peers. Such a perception was echoed by one male youth:
When I was in school, I had friends. Now they know I am in prison. They might
not want to associate with me. It‘s like my name is tarnished. In our village I
don‘t know how people view me. They think that I am a criminal (FGD-4).
Another participant in a female focus group dreaded the thought of going back home:

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 11 ~
When I was arrested, neighbors started saying negative things about me which
really hurt me yet I was helping them out even after my mother would refuse me
to do so. So, I would like that when I leave here that I don‘t go back to live there.
Discussion of Results
The main thrust of this study was to find out the perceptions of children on the child justice
system. Overall, the results show that children‘s experience of each agency shaped their
views and attitudes. Analysis of qualitative data revealed that children found interactions with
police officers highly stressful. For some children, the arrest process and experience at the
cells was life threatening. This finding bears some similarities with reports from other
countries. For example, Jackson et al. (2019) examined the mental health consequences of
highly charged police interactions with youth. The researchers found that the children
experienced high levels of emotional distress during a stop by police, social stigma and post-
traumatic stress after the stop. Gearhart et al. (2021) also found that the presence of police-
initiated post-traumatic stress symptomology among youth. On the other hand, those who had
interacted with friendly police officers had a positive view of police service. Despite the
authority and fear that police are likely to elicit, respondents were able to pick out non-verbal
and verbal behaviors that communicated empathy and compassion. The children were also
able to pick out what they felt was non therapeutic treatment by children officers and
probation officers.
Children in need of care and protection did not understand clearly who a court prosecutor was
and tended to confuse prosecutors with court clerks. They saw the prosecutor as the person
who sends perpetrators to jail. On the other hand, child offenders described their interaction
with prosecutors as hostile. Mental health service providers and key informants corroborated
this as in some focus groups, prosecutors were said to be busy with high caseloads. These
diverse perceptions are a reflection of the role conflict and competing interests of prosecutors
who have to deal with both categories of children and chart out how to interact with the
victim and how to interact with the offender. Indeed, the children‘s views were similar to
those of KI-1 who stated that prosecutors hardly interact with children in conflict with the
law. Given that prosecutors handle both protection and conflict with the law cases, there is
need for more discourse on therapeutic interactions between prosecutors and child offenders.
The children had mixed opinions towards courts and magistrates. Magistrates were helpful
but at the same time terrifying. The courtroom was described as a place they had to go but
wished they could avoid. Notable issues among the children included, a magistrate‘s body
language, multiple examinations, being voiceless in court and intimidating environment. The
lack of children court structures in a separate space from adult courts could be attributed to
these experiences. These views concur with previous research on perceptions of courts.
Saunders et al. (2020) in a meta-synthesis found that children and parents felt alienated by
courts and experienced the court process as too technical and distressing.
Appearing in court as an accused person or a witness was a source of anxiety and fear.
According to the respondents, anxiety was caused by fear of facing perpetrators, uncertainty
about the outcome of their case. Previous studies have reported court experiences as evoking
distress in children. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in a 2017 study
found that 35 % and 28 % of children felt less safe in criminal proceedings than in civil
proceedings respectively. In the same study, 61% were most likely to feel unsafe when heard
in a courtroom during criminal proceedings.

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 12 ~
There were mixed views about probation officers. Some found the officers‘ friendly while to
others, probation officers could not be trusted. This brings to focus the role conflict faced by
probation officers who are law enforcement agents, case managers and at the same time
therapists to their clients. This situation is not unique to Kenya. Studies with other
populations have revealed that young offenders find their relationship with probation officers
fair and respectful while at the same time restrictive and full of sanctions (Vidal & Woolard,
2015).
Respondents‘ experience of children officers and protection services was ambivalent. They
reported appreciating the protection aspect of children services but at the same time
experiencing distressful incidents with the staff in rehabilitation, remand and rescue centers.
They felt alienated from decision making and not treated as individuals with unique needs.
Overstaying in institutions was cited as a major source of anxiety and psychological turmoil.
The issues raised by children are an indication of how the justice system can revictimize
children, and are comparable to views of children in Nigeria as reported in a study by Atilola
et al. (2020). In this study, (74%), of the children reported verbal abuse, 90% reported
physical abuse, while 36% had been denied water and food.
With regard to Prison officers the children experiences at Borstal institutions were mostly
negative. They found the environment too confining. Some felt that they did not merit being
in these facilities. The uniforms were described as colonial and stigmatizing. These views are
however not as surprising, since Borstal institutions are more restrictive and highly secured
detention facilities that still operate on regulations set by the colonial government in 1963
(Okech, 2016). These views echo those of Borstal inmates in one facility in Nigeria studied
by Auwalu et al. (2016). In this study, 80% of the youth found the environment in Borstals
depressing and isolating.
Conclusion
The experiences of children with police, magistrates, prosecutors, probation officers, children
officers and prison officers remain imprinted in their brains, shaping their beliefs and
attitudes regarding the justice system. Children in need of care and protection reported better
experiences with police officers and children officers. Children in conflict with the law had
some positive experiences but more negative experiences with each of the six agencies. Their
experiences may have been shaped by the manner in which the justice practitioners treated
them. This is a reflection of society‘s view towards child offenders and it blinds the system to
the underlying welfare needs of these children. It is important that justice actors be
cognizance of the fact that children cross over from welfare to offending and therefore, one
who started out as in need of care and protection may have crossed over to delinquency
because their protection needs were not met.
Recommendations and Areas for Further Study
To make the judicial process less traumatizing for children, courtrooms ought to be designed
from a child‘s perspective. The directorate of public prosecution can develop a tailored
interview protocol which safeguards the child‘s psychological wellbeing. Pre-trial programs
can prepare remanded children, child witnesses and victims to handle the fear and anxiety of
attending court. The national police service may consider a consistent contingent of police
specifically designated to work with children. Capacity building of probation and children
officer is necessary so as to give them skills on interviewing and involving children

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 13 ~
throughput the phase of rehabilitation. Further studies could cover justice involved children
from other counties as well as focus on the impact of justice involvement on children.
Acknowledgements
My appreciation goes out to the children and young people who shared their narratives and
experiences of the justice system. I thank Miriam Mang‘oka and Zephania Suter for helping
with transcription.
References
Atilola, O., Abiri, G., Ola, B., & Ogun, O. (2020). Comparative risk of victimization for
adolescent boys processed through the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems in
Lagos Nigeria. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(4), 377-390.
Augsberger, A., Lens, V., & Hughes, A. (2016). I didn't know you were fighting so hard for
me: Attorneys' perceptions of youth participation in child dependency
proceedings. Family Court Review, 54(4), 578-590.
Auwalu, F. K., & Oluigbo, S. N. (2016). Built environment for rehabilitation: Case studies of
selected juvenile rehabilitation centres in Nigeria. Journal of Design and Built
Environment, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.22452/jdbe
Bala, N., Lee, J., & McNamara, E. (2001). Children as witnesses: Understanding their
capacities, needs, and experiences. Social Distress and the Homeless 10, 41–68.
Cavanagh, C., Fine, A., & Cauffman, E. (2022). How do adolescents develop legal cynicism?
A test of legal socialization mechanisms among youth involved in the justice
system. Justice Quarterly, 39 (3), 478-496.
Creaney, S. (2020). Children‘s voices—are we listening? Progressing peer mentoring in the
youth justice system. Child Care in Practice, 26(1), 22-37.
DeFosset, A. R., Schooley, T. S., Abrams, L. S., Kuo, T., & Gase, L. N. (2017). Describing
theoretical underpinnings in juvenile justice diversion: A case study explicating teen
court program theory to guide research and practice. Children and Youth Services
Review, 73, 419-429.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, (2017). Child-friendly justice: Perspectives
and experiences of professionals on children’s participation in civil and criminal
judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States. (Report No. 978-92-9239-658-9). Fra.
doi:10.2811/91391
Fine, A. D., Del Toro, J., & Orosco, C. (2022). Consequences of fearing police: Associations
with youths' mental health and felt obligation to obey both the law and school
rules. Criminal Justice, 83. 101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101934
Fine, A. D., Fountain, E., & Vidal, S. (2019). Juveniles‘ beliefs about and perceptions of
probation predict technical violations and delinquency. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 25(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000195.
Gavin, P. (2021). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the development of family courts in

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 14 ~
Ireland. European Journal of Current Legal Issues, 25(1).
https://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/734
Gearhart, M. C., Bender, A., Barnhart, S., Berg, K. A., & Jones, C. (2021). Youth profiles of
police-initiated post-traumatic stress symptomatology. Child and adolescent social
work journal, 39(4), 525-537.
Jackson, D. B., Fahmy, C., Vaughn, M. G., & Testa, A. (2019). Police stops among at-risk
youth: Repercussions for mental health. Adolescent Health, 65(5), 627-632.
Lens, V. (2017). Engaging parents in family court: Lessons from an observational study of
child protection cases. Journal of social work, 17(2), 129-146.
Motz, R. T., Barnes, J. C., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Cullen, F. T., Houts, R.,... & Moffitt, T.
E. (2020). Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency?
Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins. Criminology, 58(2),
307-335.
Moyo, A. (2013). Balancing the best interests of the child and the interests of society when
sentencing youth offenders and primary caregivers in South Africa. South African
Journal on Human Rights, 29 (2), 314-350.
Office of the director of public prosecutions (2020). A prosecutor’s guide to children in the
criminal justice system. https://www.odpp.go.ke/downloads/
Okech, C, J. (2016). The juvenile justice in Kenya: Growth, system and structures.
https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No101/No101_5_VE_Okech_1.pdf
Oraegbunam, I. K. (2019). The jurisprudence of adversarial justice. Ogirisi: A New Journal
of African studies, 15, 27-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/og.v15i1.2
Pealer, J., Terry, A. N., & Adams, K. R. (2017). Voices from inside the walls: Views of the
juvenile justice system from the youthful offenders. Corrections, 2 (2), 130-147.
Perlin, M. L., & Lynch, A. J. (2018). She's nobody's child/the law can't touch her at all:
Seeking to bring dignity to legal proceedings involving juveniles. Family Court
Review, 56(1), 79-99.
Richardson, E., Spencer, P., & Wexler, D. B. (2016). The international framework for court
excellence and therapeutic jurisprudence: Creating excellent courts and enhancing
wellbeing. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2782162.
Saldana, J. (2008). An introduction to codes and coding. London: Sage.
Saunders, B. J., Lansdell, G., & Frederick, J. (2020). Understanding children‘s court
processes and decisions: Perceptions of children and their families. Youth Justice, 20
(3), 272-292.
Special Taskforce on Children Matters. (2019). Status report on children in the justice
system in Kenya. National Council for Administration of Justice.https://ncaj.go.ke/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/NCAJ-Report-Digital-Version.pdf

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 15 ~
Vidal, S., & Woolard, J. (2016). Parents' perceptions of juvenile probation: Relationship and
interaction with juvenile probation officers, parent strategies, and youth's compliance
on probation. Children and Youth Services Review, 66, 1-8.
https://doi10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.019
Wangamati, C. K., Yegon, G., Sundby, J., & Prince, R. J. (2019). Sexualised violence against
children: A review of laws and policies in Kenya. Sexual and reproductive health
matters, 27(1), 16-28.
Wilson, S., Hean, S., Abebe, T., & Heaslip, V. (2020). Children‘s experiences with child
protection services: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Children and Youth Services
Review, 113, 104974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104974

Muema et al., Children Experiences of the Child Justice System…
~ 16 ~