Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Violences juvéniles sous expertise(s) / Expertise and Juvenile Violence

 | 
Aurore François
, 
Veerle Massin
, 
David Niget

Legalism and Paternalism in Greece

Powerful Trends in the Reification of Risk and the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders

Vasso Artinopoulou et Vassiliki Petoussi-Douli

Texte intégral

1The phenomenon of juvenile delinquency in Greece has become a subject of interest for a number of criminology and legal scholars -particularly in recent years. Although contributions of criminological and social science expertise are not lacking, issues related to juvenile violence tend to be defined in legal or even legalistic terms whilst responses to these issues tend to follow a protectionist if not paternalistic pattern, notwithstanding the marked shift from a welfare to a justice model with distinct restorative justice aspects. Of particular importance to issues related to juvenile violence are the interpretations and responses to the notion of risk which over the years have tended to depend upon ideological constructs mutually reinforced by the socio-political circumstances of various historical periods. In this paper we address the content of risk as interdependent with the functions and operations of the juvenile justice system and its experts within specific socio-political and historical periods.

2Similarly to other countries, the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency in Greece has become the subject of several criminological studies in recent years. To varying degrees, these studies implemented theoretical constructs developed elsewhere to the reality of this country. However, identified as a social phenomenon soon after Greece acquired its independence, juvenile delinquency was handled primarily and consistently within the context of penal law adjusted to the principle of special treatment for juveniles. To that extent, despite the fact that, at times, the relevant legislative committees on juvenile delinquency make explicit references to criminological and social science theory and research, the relevant constructs are adjusted to legal constructs and not vice versa. This is in fact particularly important since the legal treatment of juvenile delinquency represents the main, if not the only treatment of the phenomenon. Thus, as we argue in this paper, criminological (as well as other types of) expertise on the matter exerts restricted if not peripheral influence upon juvenile delinquency. Consequently, the understanding and treatment of juvenile delinquency tends to depend upon legal constructs, definitions and interpretations.

3For the most part, legal constructs and definitions pertaining to juvenile delinquency have been interpreted and implemented by various mechanisms and agents; Juvenile Judges for example, whose main areas of expertise are legal. In more recent years, legal experts have been assisted by welfare experts, mainly social workers. Both legal and welfare agents, however, tend to lack special training and practically adjust their general legal and welfare expertise to the treatment of juveniles. At the intersection between legal and welfare expertise, the treatment of juvenile delinquency has acquired paternalistic and protectionist characteristics which have persisted over time.

4At the center of the treatment of juvenile delinquency in Greece lies the notion of risk. On the one hand, implementation of legal regulations largely depends upon interpretations of risk as they relate to the overall phenomenon and the behavior and treatment of specific individuals. On the other hand, interpretations of risk have persistently depended upon socio-political and historical contexts. To that extent, the socio-political and historical context within which elements of risk are constructed, defined and interpreted are of particular interest.

5In this paper, we address the content of risk as interdependent with the functions and operations of the juvenile justice system and its experts. The issues addressed are approached in chronological order. In the following section, we provide an overview of the juvenile justice system. Then we look into the experts within the system and, finally, we analyze the content of risk as it has been defined, interpreted and implemented within distinct socio-political and historical periods.

1. Overview and characteristics of legal provisions for juveniles

  • 1 Art. 85 Penal Law of 1834 in Nestror E. Courakis, “The institutional framework of juvenile law (Gr (...)
  • 2 Courakis, “The institutional framework…”, p. 2.

6Explicit references to the need for specialized legal treatment of minors first appeared in the Greek penal law of 1834. Characterized by a rather punitive approach, the penal law of 1834 treated all persons over the age of 14 as adults on the basis that their young age per se “does not constitute any right to reduction of punishment1”. At the other end of the spectrum, even children under the age of 10, although not held liable, were not fully exempt from penal sanctions and could be placed under police supervision. The liability of juveniles between the ages of 10 and 14 was assessed via the criterion of discernment. Like adults, juveniles judged liable could be sentenced to imprisonment, albeit for a reduced time. Non-liable juveniles on the other hand, were acquitted. Nevertheless, it remained at the Judge’s discretion whether an acquitted juvenile would be sent to a juvenile institution for a “proper upbringing2”.

  • 3 This notation refers to: number of legal text/number of year published in the Government Gazette.
  • 4 Government Gazette A 14/1919.
  • 5 Government Gazette A 1931. The law was enacted on 1st January 1940. The first hearing of the juven (...)
  • 6 Law 2135 “On the adjudication of crimes of juveniles”, Government Gazette A 533/1939.
  • 7 Law 2724 “On the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories”, Government Gazette A 449/1 (...)

7This type of punitive legal approach was abandoned in favor of a more protectionist, welfare-oriented treatment of juveniles following provisions of the Constitution of 1912. Law 1682/19193 “on the protection of juveniles from mendicancy, vagrancy etc, exposed4” is the first in a series of laws pertaining to the treatment of juveniles followed by Law 5098/1931 “on juvenile courts”, which provided for their establishment but remained inactive5. Juvenile courts were first instituted by Law 2135/1939 “on the adjudication of crimes of juveniles6”, whilst Law 2724/1940 “on the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories7” provided the juvenile reform system’s basic operational framework.

  • 8 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories», (...)
  • 9 Courakis, “Institutional framework…”, p. 3-4.

8As was explicitly stated in their introductory reports, these laws aimed primarily at the “moral protection and reform of ‘criminal’ and ‘pre-criminal’ juveniles8”. Thus, similarly to “criminal” juveniles, that is, juveniles who had already committed an offense, “pre-criminal” juveniles, who, despite not having committed an offense, were thought to be at risk of “moral transgression” due to abandonment or lack of occupation and/or permanent residence, could be sent to reformatory institutions and/or asylums by a simple administrative act of protective detention, ordered by public prosecutors or the Minister of Justice at the suggestion of juvenile judges. At the time, there existed a significant number of children who, due to the outbreak of wars between 1910 and 1920 and the disastrous war in Asia Minor which resulted in an influx of refugees into the country, had been orphaned or abandoned and were, thus, living in substandard conditions. Overall then, legislation pertaining to juveniles and enacted up to the year 1940 was characterized by a punitive, yet protectionist, approach combined with State efforts to deal with the distinct social problem of unprotected, socially marginalized juveniles; victims of national and international social disasters9.

  • 10 Law 3315 “On supplementing juvenile courts’ and treatment of juveniles’ laws in force”, Government (...)

9The Penal Code (PC) and the Code of Penal Procedural Law (CPPL) of 1950 introduced significant amendments to, if not innovations in the operation of the juvenile justice system in general. Along with Law 3315/1955, which supplemented existing juvenile legislation10, these texts, despite having undergone several modifications, can be considered the backbone of juvenile legislation, since they established the basic rules and principles according to which the country’s juvenile justice system operated for over 50 years.

  • 11 According to the PC, the CPPL and Law 3315/1955 reform measures include: reprimand by the Court, p (...)

10Following legislative patterns established in various other countries and explicitly referring to criminological theory and empirical evidence, the above-mentioned legislation expanded the age brackets of childhood and adolescence. Specifically, infants, that is, children under the age of 7, remained outside the jurisdiction of penal law as lacking criminal responsibility; children, that is, persons between the ages of 7 and 12, were also exempt from criminal liability. They were, however, subject to curative and protective measures. Finally, adolescents, that is, persons between the ages of 12 and 17, bear limited criminal responsibility and were subject only to curative and reform measures unless judged criminally liable, in which case, he/she could be subjected to security measures such as detention in a juvenile reformatory11.

  • 12 Pitsela, “Greece: Criminal Responsibility...”, p. 356; Calliope D. Spinellis, Aglaia Tsitsoura, “T (...)

11Limited criminal liability or a lack thereof, was seen as the standard, appropriate for the physiological, emotional, psychological and social developmental stage of persons in this age group. Assessment of liability was linked to the notion of dangerousness, that is, a juvenile’s potential to further engage in criminal and/or deviant behavior. After abolishing the discernment criterion, assessment of liability was determined on an individual basis and depended upon the circumstances of the offense and the personality of the offender12.

  • 13 Introductory report on Law 3315/1955 in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 142.
  • 14 Pitsela, “Greece: Criminal Responsibility...”, p. 365.

12Although present in the PC and the CPPL, the spirit, the goals and the general operating principles of juvenile justice in Greece became explicit in the introductory report of Law 3315/1955, where it is stated that legislation on juvenile offenders takes the form of a “protective” albeit penal law13. It follows then, that despite its welfare-oriented, rather protectionist approach, juvenile legislation explicitly maintained its dependence on penal legislation. Indicative of this is the fact that juvenile courts are penal courts14.

  • 15 Government Gazette A 243/21 October 2003.
  • 16 Nestor E. Courakis, “The New Greek Legislation on Deviant Minors (l. 3189/203). From Law in the Bo (...)

13Although modified by several amendments, this protectionist, rather legalistic model of juvenile legislation of the 1950’s remained dominant in the treatment of juveniles for over fifty years. Criticized for inadequately protecting the legal rights of juvenile offenders, for partially implementing international directives pertaining to the treatment of juveniles and for disregarding juvenile victims, juvenile legislation needed to change. Thus, Law 3189/2003 on the “reform of juvenile penal legislation15” was enacted and arguably, “successfully harmonized our law to the contemporary international trend towards the justice model16”.

  • 17 Introductory report on the draft law “Reform of juvenile penal legislation”, Hellenic Parliament, (...)

14As explained in its introductory report, Law 3189/2003 is oriented towards the prevention of delinquency and the social reintegration of juveniles. At the same time, it explicitly acknowledges underage persons’ unique developmental stage, therefore, prioritizing protective over punitive measures. Moreover, adhering, to the fundamental principles of crime prevention theory and policy, reference to “juvenile criminals” and the distinction between children and adolescents were thus abolished. Consequently, in Law 3189/2003, “underage persons”, that is persons aged 8 to 18, lack criminal liability and if they engage in behavior penally sanctioned for adults, are only subject to reform and curative measures. However, security measures may be imposed upon persons 13 to 18 years of age if, taking into account the circumstances of the offense and the personality of the offender, the Court considers detention necessary for deterrence. Overall, the guiding principle in the treatment of juveniles maintains that the mildest measure “deemed necessary, fair and effective”, be implemented17.

  • 18 Spinellis, Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice…”, p. 320.
  • 19 Art. 45A PC; Spinellis , Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice…”, p. 320-321.

15Innovations which clearly differentiate Law 3189/2003 from previous legislation relate to the expansion and strengthening of juveniles’ procedural rights and, therefore, their individual rights. Specifically, implemented measures are of determinate length, the right to appeal juvenile court decisions is expanded, the range of reform measures widens and elements of restorative justice are introduced. Moreover, provisions are made for compensation and overall alleviation of damages as well as mediation between juvenile offenders and their victims. Along the same lines, offending minors may be sentenced to community service or ordered to attend socio-psychological treatment programs, safe driving courses or a vocational training school. Alternatively, they may be placed in the care of foster families, under the supervision (or intense supervision as the case may be) of a Society for the Protection of Minors (SPM), or a Supervisor of Minors (art 122, 1d PC) and, only as a last resort, may they be placed in a public, municipal or private educational institution18. Finally, a significant clause in Law 3189/2003 is the provision that Juvenile Prosecutors may refrain from prosecution of petty offenses or misdemeanors if they assess it unnecessary for preventing future re-offending19.

2. Experts and expertise

2.1. The Juvenile Court and juvenile justice personnel

  • 20 Spinellis, Greek Law of Juvenile Offenders and Victims…, p. 104, 37.
  • 21 Petoussi, Stavrou, “Greece”, p. 152.

16The juvenile court can be considered pivotal to the treatment of juveniles in Greece, given that definitions of delinquency and risk as well as the significance of experts and the contents of expertise are constructed and constituted around the Court’s function and operation, notwithstanding the principles of minimum intervention and preference for treatment over punishment20. Identifiable experts with distinct roles are the Juvenile Judge, the Juvenile Prosecutor and the Supervisor of Minors, a type of probation officer for juveniles. These experts are State agents and/or employees associated with the Court in one way or another; in their various capacities, each contributes differently to the outcome of a juvenile’s contact with the juvenile justice system21. Other types of experts, employed or contracted by the State, engage in the treatment of juveniles for whom curative or security measures have been ordered.

17Classified as penal and following relevant provisions, the juvenile court is comprised of the presiding judge, the public prosecutor and the secretary of the Court. Depending on the sentences foreseen for offenses in arbitration, juvenile courts, like penal courts in general, adjudicate as a one-judge court, a three-judge court or a three-judge appeals’ court. In all instances, however, presiding over the court is the Juvenile Judge.

  • 22 Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 203, 201.
  • 23 According to Greek penal law, based on the provided for sanctions, offenses are classified as pett (...)
  • 24 Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 202.

18The pivotal role of the Juvenile Judge within the juvenile justice system and the overall treatment of juveniles who come into contact with this system are consistently acknowledged in the relevant legislation. Law 5098/1931, in its introductory report, characterized the composition of the Court as “a matter of utmost importance” and proclaimed it competent for adjudicating offenses committed by juveniles as well as treating juveniles perceived to be in ‘moral danger’22. Subsequent legislation restricted the jurisdiction of juvenile courts to offenses committed by juveniles; initially petty offenses and misdemeanors and, later on, felonies23 as well (art. 113 CPPL of 1950). Juveniles in moral danger were placed under the discretionary power of the Judge, the extent of which can be further appreciated given the indeterminacy of sentences, along with “the administration of juvenile criminality, in its entirety”24.

  • 25 Art. 122 par. 2a and 2b PC.
  • 26 Spinellis, Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice…”, p. 320.

19The provision of indeterminate sentences was overturned in Law 3189/2003, thus supporting the argument of the Greek juvenile justice system’s shift from a welfare to a justice model. Nevertheless, welfare, protectionist, if not paternalistic elements are maintained by the system, particularly with respect to the discretionary powers of the Court. Specifically, the Court may impose “obligations related to the way of life and edification of the juvenile” or, in rare and exceptional cases, impose two or more reform measures simultaneously25. Moreover, while exercising their right to refrain from prosecution, Juvenile Prosecutors may impose reform measures or require that the minor donate a sum of money (up to 1,000 euros) to a non-profit or social welfare organization. Should the juvenile not adhere to the measures imposed, the Juvenile Prosecutor may proceed with prosecution26.

  • 27 Art 7, par. 2 CPPL states that it is preferable that judges speak a foreign language such as Engli (...)
  • 28 Artinopoulou, “Victim Offender Mediation…”.

20Acknowledging the importance of their role, art. 7 of the CPPL requires that Juvenile Judges have “specialized knowledge” whilst in its introductory report it is stated that the State must pay particular attention to their training and specialization. Nevertheless, neither have State initiatives for the training of Judges been undertaken, nor has the content of the required knowledge been specified; except for competence in a foreign language27. This situation has remained unchanged even after the enactment of Law 3189/2003 which introduces restorative justice provisions. Given that, and in light of the complexity of measures put at the discretionary power of Juvenile Judges, lack of specialized knowledge, education and training, the Juvenile Judges’ expertise may be characterized as insufficient28.

  • 29 Petoussi, Stavrou “Greece”, p 152; Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 81-82.

21In practice, selected from among those serving in standard penal courts and assigned to their position for a two-year, renewable term, Juvenile Judges tend to be drawn from the younger and to a certain extent inexperienced members of the justice corps. Rarely, if ever, do Juvenile Judges have specialized knowledge, whilst the brevity of their tenure further impedes their specialization. Moreover, Juvenile Judges are not relieved from their regular duties, the performance of which is the basis for promotion and advancement. Thus, for many of the Judges, serving in the juvenile court is viewed as parenthetical in their career. To this extent, it can be argued that despite legal proclamations to the contrary, in reality, Juvenile Judges lack the specialization necessary for the performance of their duties29. Based on the above it might be deduced that the juvenile justice system takes a rather legalistic approach to dealing with juveniles. Yet, despite its distinctly legalistic elements, the role of judges in the treatment of juveniles who come into contact with the law tends to be perceived both in theory and in practice as protective rather than punitive.

2.2. Experts and expertise supporting the role of the juvenile judge

  • 30 Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 218.

22Soon after the institutionalization of juvenile courts, Law 2724/1940 “on the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories” was enacted. This law is a comprehensive legislative effort to charter the operating principles and coordinate various agents related to the treatment of juveniles as part of a State-operated mechanism supportive of the role of juvenile courts and Juvenile Judges30. At the same time, this law introduced and instituted the notion and the reality of experts and expertise as indispensable to the operation of the Greek juvenile justice system.

  • 31 Art. 1 Law 2724/1940; Explanatory report on the draft law: “On the organization and operation of j (...)
  • 32 Art. 3 Law 2724/1940.
  • 33 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation…”, in Troiannou-Loula, The (...)

23Law 2724/1940 regulates the operation of juvenile reformatories inasmuch as they pertain to juvenile offenders and juveniles in moral danger31. The reform and rehabilitation of juveniles, envisioned by Law 2724/140 to be the purpose of correctional facilities and the wider goal of the juvenile justice system, was to be accomplished through physical education, discipline, fostering of moral, religious and social ideals as well as occupational training while particular attention would be placed on the “national edification of juveniles32”. The realization of this goal required the hiring of personnel specializing in vocational training, education, technical assistance, administration and health care. Thus, the reform and rehabilitation of juveniles as well as their “national edification” required some level of expertise albeit defined in a rather broad and general sense. Therefore, the experts employed were actually teachers, medical doctors (required to provide health education in addition to health care services), law school graduates with expertise in criminology and corrections along with members of the clergy33.

  • 34 Art. 2 Law 2724/1940.
  • 35 Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 207-208, 219.

24Experts and expertise in a narrower sense were instituted as a requisite to the effective operation of the juvenile justice system in light of the law’s requirement that thorough review of the offender’s personality and social environment should precede sentencing to a correctional institution34. To conduct this type of research, assist the work of Juvenile Courts and contribute overall to the reform and the rehabilitation of juveniles who tend toward antisocial behavior or are in moral danger due to an unstable family environment and lack of appropriate supervision35, art. 12 of Law 2724/1940 instituted Societies for the Protection of Minors (SPM) as legal entities in each city and town in which a Court of the first instance existed.

  • 36 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation…”, in Troiannou-Loula, The (...)

25According to the law’s explanatory report, these Societies were to function as the “main assisting agent of juvenile courts36”.

  • 37 Under different names and organizational schemes, this organization has been providing welfare ser (...)
  • 38 Art. 12 last par. Law 2724/1940.

26On the Board of these Societies sat the Juvenile Judge or Juvenile Prosecutor, the Superintendent of the juvenile correctional institution (should one exist in the respective city or town), a representative of the Patriotic Foundation37 or the person presiding over the social welfare center, a Boy Scout representative and a representative of the medical association. The remaining board members were selected from among the clergy, teachers, members of city and town councils and persons recognized for their “special commitment to education or welfare activities38”.

  • 39 In relation to SPMs, the law appears to be particularly gender sensitive and concerned that both m (...)
  • 40 Art. 12 par. 6 law 2724/1940.
  • 41 Howard S. Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York, The Free Press, 1963, (...)

27Members of these Societies, both men and women39, were selected and approved by the Board, were required to pay an annual fee and provide general assistance to the Society’s mission. Appointed by the Board, members were to “carry out social research for juveniles in custody pending trial and juveniles in moral danger and see to it that they be provided with any necessary protection40”. Based on the above it can be argued that members of SPMs were selected and functioned not so much on the bases of their professional expertise and knowledge but rather on the bases of their “moral entrepreneurship” -to paraphrase Becker41.

  • 42 Introductory report on Law 2793/1954 “On organizing a Service of Supervisors of Minors adjunct to (...)
  • 43 Law 2793 “On organizing a Service of Supervisors of Minors adjunct to the Juvenile Courts”, Govern (...)
  • 44 Art. 1 and 2 Law 2793/1954.
  • 45 Art. 5 Law 2793/1954; Introductory report on Law 2793/1954 “On the Service of Supervisors of Minor (...)

28World War II, and the Civil War that followed in Greece, brought legislative interest in the treatment of juvenile delinquency to a halt. The renewed interest expressed regarding relevant provisions in the PC and CPPL did not produce changes in the mechanism supporting the juvenile courts’ operation. Thus, the SPMs continued to provide whatever expertise they could assemble and place at the disposal of Juvenile Judges. Private initiatives, however, regardless of their importance and significance, were considered potentially short-lived and insufficient for the effective operation of an institution of such importance. So instituted, a public agency was rendered mandatory for the State42. To this end, law 2793/195443 instituted the Service of the Supervisors of Minors (SSM) under the direct authority of the Juvenile Judge44. The law’s introductory report provided an articulate review of the legal history and the operation of juvenile courts in the country and, more importantly, assessed the values and proposed the operating principles to guide the SSM. Despite acknowledging that Supervisors of Minors should be tenured and salaried State employees, budgetary constraints at the time led to the designation of such positions as “honorary and unpaid45”.

  • 46 Legal decree 3811 “On extending certain provisions of legal decree 3379/1955 ‘on public education (...)
  • 47 The Queen’s Welfare Foundation was founded on 10 July 1947 and gave legal entity status to an exte (...)
  • 48 Art. 9 Law 2793/1954.

29A 1958 legal decree46 provided stipends to Supervisors of Minors through the Queen’s Welfare Foundation47 and at the same time instituted the employment process and the qualification requirements for Supervisors. Graduates in Law, Philosophy, Theology, Political Science, Education and Social Work, as well as persons who had already served as Supervisors of Minors, could be hired into the Service after successful completion of requisite tests and examinations48. Thus, it can be argued that the above-mentioned legal decree defined the types of expertise considered necessary to support the Juvenile Court.

  • 49 Law 378 “On establishing the branch and tenured positions of Supervisors of Minors adjunct to the (...)
  • 50 Presidential Decree 49 “On the Operation of the Service of Supervisors of Minors”, Government Gaze (...)

30With the subsequent legislation enacted in 197649, the positions of Supervisors of Minors became tenured as well as salaried, while in 197950 the qualifications and hiring procedures concerning Supervisors of Minors were clearly defined. Based on relevant legislation, Supervisors of Minors are mainly certified social workers.

  • 51 Nonetheless, a number of restorative justice and peer mediation programs have been implemented sin (...)

31Implementation of measures provided for by Law 3189/2003, especially those related to restorative justice procedures, in essence introduced additional new expertise to the system, such as training in mediation. Nevertheless, leading experts from the system, namely juvenile justice personnel and Supervisors of Minors, are lacking in such expertise, while training programs51 particularly designed for penal justice personnel and juvenile justice system personnel have not been implemented -despite the interest expressed.

32Overall then, it can be argued that the principal experts influencing the operation of the juvenile justice system are in fact legal experts (Juvenile Judges and other justice system personnel), as well as certified social workers employed in the Service of Supervisors of Minors. Criminological expertise exerts minimal influence on the drafting of certain laws. Such influence is documented in the introductory report on the law establishing the Juvenile Court and the correctional institutions. Of particular interest is the introductory report on the law regarding the Service of Supervisors of Minors, the necessity of which is justified on rather criminological grounds.

33Given the importance of the notion of risk within the function and operations of the juvenile justice system in Greece, we proceed to examining its development. To approach the meaning of risk in relation to various perceptions of and subsequent responses to juvenile delinquency, we must examine at least some of the structural characteristics of the historical, political and socio-cultural contexts within which they transpire. For analytical purposes, this approach will be organized in chronological order corresponding more or less to historical periods, marked and influenced by identifiable singular events and/or series of events.

3. Elements of risk

34An initial approach to the notion of risk was introduced in law 2724/1940, regulating the function and operation of juvenile reform institutions. The importance of this law lies primarily in the spirit expressed in the principles it laid down which, despite subsequent reforms and severe criticisms, remained essentially intact for over 50 years.

  • 52 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation…”, in Troiannou-Loula, The (...)
  • 53 Ibidem, p. 244.
  • 54 Ibid., p.246; Art. 2 par. 4 and 5 of Law 2724/1940; Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 38-39.

35In the aftermath of various wars and national disasters (such as the war in Asia Minor and the Balkan Wars), the law’s explanatory report distinguishes two categories of youth potentially at risk: first, children and adolescents who, in spite of living in harsh conditions or being abandoned by their parents and/or guardians are neither “morally abandoned nor in moral danger” and second, juveniles who “demonstrate real tendencies towards crime and antisocial behavior” and “are in need of betterment” to the extent that they “have given strong evidence of moral danger or moral transgression52”. According to the law’s introductory report, protection should be provided for the former category by social welfare agents. Juvenile reform institutions should aim at the treatment, betterment and reform of the latter category of juveniles through “physical education, discipline, schooling, cultivation of moral, religious and social ideals and through work and vocational training53”. Thus, it can be deduced that minors (between 7 and 18 years of age) were considered in moral danger or in danger of moral transgression if they tended to be disobedient and argumentative with their parents, ran away from home, were involved in truancy or begging and generally exhibited behavior which could be broadly and loosely described as deviant. Without requiring parents’ or guardians’, much less the juvenile’s consent, sentencing of such juveniles to reform institutions regardless of whether they had committed an offense was decided on by the Minister of Justice at the suggestion of the Juvenile Judge. Consequently, an assessment of the potentiality of a broad range of behaviors indicating future criminal activity was performed outside the checks and balances of procedural justice. Parents of juveniles at moral risk lost custody of their children and the State, through its experts, teachers, vocational trainers, the clergy and medical doctors, was presumed capable of ensuring the proper upbringing of young people preventively detained54.

  • 55 After the war in Asia Minor which ended in 1922 and resulted in the defeat of the Greek army, appr (...)
  • 56 Ioannis Metaxas declared his dictatorship in August 1936 and for years competed with King George I (...)
  • 57 Marina Petrakis, The Metaxas Myth: Dictatorship and Propaganda in Greece, London: I.B.Tauris & Co, (...)

36Paternalistic as it was, this type of treatment of juveniles can be better appreciated in the socio-political and cultural context of the time. Greece was a rather new country (obtaining independence in 1830), exiting a long period of wars and national disasters with implications for its demographic composition, modes of production, economy and overall social and political organization. Despite their shortcoming, several projects undertaken at the time, such as the redistribution of land and the founding of a social security and health care system, continue to have structural ramifications. Either as a direct goal or as a derivative of such projects, elements of modernization were introduced into the life of the poor, poorly educated, radically diversified55 and progressively urbanized population of Greece. In the midst of these transformations and in light of existing social problems, inspired by similar projects and efforts in Germany and Italy, the dictator Ioannis Metaxas56 attempted to implement his own vision of a healthy, disciplined, moral, educated and modern youth through the National Youth Organization (NYO). Founded in 1936, NYO had pronounced military characteristics (blue uniforms for all, salutation with an extended arm, its own hymn, parades, etc) and served as a propaganda mechanism. Counting over 1,000,000 members (the country’s population at the time was approximately 7,500,000) the NYO, suspended immediately after the instigation of the German occupation of Greece in 1941, further impacted on social values and the mores of the time. Young people, boys and girls, young men and young women, interacted in public spaces, organized theater performances, took part in excursions, published a journal and generally engaged in the overall modernization process of the country57.

  • 58 This type of approach remained dominant in the years following World War II and the Civil War in G (...)

37In the context of the nationalist – even fascist – ideals propagated at the time alongside ideological cohesion and implementation of various modernization projects, the moral foundation and characteristics of young people took on particular significance. Moreover, the paternalistic State had and could deploy experts and expertise by way of teachers, vocational trainers, and the clergy all of whom had already proven indispensable in transmitting goals and construing the implementation of structural plans and tasks elsewhere, for the benefit of juveniles at risk. Thus, in this context, juveniles were at risk of moral danger when they deviated from the prototypical, idealized youth of the time. The State with its protective, albeit paternalistic, mechanism assumed the role of moral educator, a “moral entrepreneur”58.

  • 59 Paul Weindling, “Human Experiments and Nazi Genocide: a Problematic Legacy», in Review of Bioethic (...)

38At the international level, following World War II, much attention was paid to the protection of human and procedural rights, as well as safeguarding against State and ideological transgressions and atrocities. In the aftermath of Nazi concentration camps, experimentation on human subjects and genocides, the potentiality of risk and danger was linked to expert implemented State policies, supported and justified by ideological constructs targeting vulnerable groups and individuals59. Against this type of potential risk, universal declarations, resolutions and codes of professional ethics were drafted and procedural guarantees fortified.

39In parallel, sociology and criminology paid particular attention to juvenile delinquency and provided multiple, frequently conflicting, accounts of its etiology and treatment. Yet, such theoretical explanations tended to approach juvenile delinquency as interrelated to the broader socio-cultural, economic and political context within which it occurs. Moreover, based on the belief that adolescence is a period during which a person’s personality continues to form and, thus, is amenable to training and education, an influential trend developed within the relevant scholarship which suggested that juveniles who come into contact with the law should be accorded special treatment: treatment directed towards their protection and welfare rather than punishment.

  • 60 Kalliopi D. Spinellis (ed.), Constantinos G. Gardikas: The Founder of Criminology in Greece, Athen (...)

40Criminology in Greece was still in its infancy at the time. Nevertheless, experts like Constantinos G. Gardikas, who followed international trends in criminology, corrections and legal theory and practice60, selectively introduced rules and regulations into the penal justice system which accorded juvenile offenders special treatment, thus minimizing the potential risk they might face if tried by adult penal courts. Consequently, and in order to safeguard the protection and welfare of juvenile offenders, the age of non-liability was expanded whilst all offenses committed by juveniles came under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.

  • 61 Law 3315 “On supplementing legislation on juvenile courts and treatment of juveniles”, Government (...)
  • 62 Introductory report on Law 3315/1955 “On supplementing legislation on juvenile courts and treatmen (...)

41The way notions of welfare and protection of juveniles further materialized in Greek legislation can be found in the provisions of Law 3315/195561. Specifically, art 1. par. 1 of Law 3315/1955 introduced the ‘closed door’ procedure in juvenile trials in order to minimize the risk of stigmatization as well as the risk of perpetuation of the deviant status. As explained in the introductory report of Law 3315/1955, the closed door procedure “protects the malleable character of minors… prevents the juvenile’s moral devaluation” and furthermore, lacking an audience, juveniles are protected from the tendency to “show off”, a tendency that in itself “leads to antisocial behavior62.” Based on the above, it can be argued that legal provisions pertaining to juvenile delinquency had a strong protectionist element.

  • 63 Ibid., p. 142.

42The notion of juveniles’ welfare and protection is exemplified in yet another legal provision. Art. 1 par. 2 of Law 3315/1955 provides that in order to protect the juvenile’s “general interest” or “the sincerity of the testimony” he/she may be temporarily removed from the court room. Moreover, according to the law’s introductory report, removing the juvenile from the courtroom is purportedly protecting him/her from potential “moral harm”; harm generated by evidence, facts and situations which may be revealed during the trial and which “the juvenile is better off not knowing63”. Based on the above, it can be argued that in dealing with offending minors, Law 3315/1955 set up a number of procedural safeguards for the special treatment of juvenile offenders. Yet, these safeguards show strong legalist, protectionist, and even paternalistic characteristics.

  • 64 Circular 73, “On the basic operating principles of juvenile Courts and the possibilities for impro (...)
  • 65 Circular 73/19/12/1953, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 448.

43On the other hand, the notion of juveniles in moral danger developed in the 1940’s remained influential in the penal reforms of the 1950’s. It is particularly interesting to see how this notion was viewed initially from within the context of the juvenile justice system and, secondly, how it was interpreted by the political ideology of the time. A rather extensive circular64, issued on 19 November 1953 and addressed to juvenile justice personnel, states that the goal of the Juvenile Judge should be to protect society through the prevention rather than punishment of juvenile delinquency and the successful reintegration of offending juveniles65.

  • 66 From this circular it can be deduced that preventive detention on the grounds of moral danger was (...)
  • 67 Constantinos G. Gardikas, “Underage Criminals”, in Poinika Xronika 1, 1951, p. 212-223 [in Greek].

44Judges are further urged to abstain from imposing preventive detention on juveniles in moral danger even in cases where parents themselves request the detainment of their children66. Given this, it can be argued that the notion of risk in relation to juveniles in moral danger was a debatable issue. Although there were exceptions, it appears that the general tendency was to lean toward a rather strict interpretation of the term67. However, a different, clearly ideological and politicized interpretation of risk evolved during the 1950’s and carried over into the period of the military junta (1967-1974). This approach was initiated and implemented outside the checks and balances of procedural law and mutually reinforced by the political powers in force at the time.

  • 68 Mark Mazower (ed), After the War was Over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation and State in Greece, (...)
  • 69 Constantinos Tsoucalas, “The Ideological Impact of the Civil War”, in John O. Iatrides (ed.), Gree (...)
  • 70 Samatas, Surveillance…, p. 30-31.

45In the aftermath of World War II and the Civil War (1947-1949) that followed, Greece entered an extended period of political turmoil and unrest68 which culminated in the dictatorship of 21 April 1964. The political regime, “Crowned Parliamentary Democracy”, was in actuality an oppressive, overtly anticommunist, authoritative police state in which citizens were divided along the lines of political affiliation and beliefs. Dissent from State ideology and the political regime resulted in prosecutions, exile, seizure of property and deprivation of citizenship. Assent to State ideology and pledging loyalty to the ruling regime guaranteed access to public subsidies as well as (and even more importantly) jobs in the public sector which, in the context of the poor postwar and post-civil war economic conditions and high unemployment rates, were not only attractive but mandatory for the survival of many and key to the upward mobility of an elite of experts (university graduates for example) partaking in the reconstruction and rebuilding of the State69. Dependence on public subsidies and public jobs served as a support mechanism for the State and the associated ideological constructs that were further perpetuated by a pervasive mechanism of observation and surveillance through police, security and military agents as well as citizens operating as informants for the police70.

  • 71 Ibid., p. 34.
  • 72 The term is suggested by Nicos C. Alivizatos, “The ‘Emergency Regime’ and Civil Liberties 1946-194 (...)
  • 73 Samatas, Surveillance…, p. 34.

46Moreover, alongside the Constitution of 1952, which purportedly protected the civil liberties of all, suppressive “Civil War emergency legislation (the so-called ‘paraconstitution’) was enacted to deal with dissenters71”, thus resulting in the hybrid situation of “constitutional dualism72”. Freely interpreted, this type of dualism meant that for a “healthy thinking”, nationally-minded citizen, constitutional rights and related procedural safeguards were in effect and he/she could rely on them. For political dissenters, however, the Constitution was overturned by Civil War emergency legislation73, subjecting them to the workings of a shadow state (parakratos) parallel, if not oppositional and antagonistic, to the State.

47The situation for juveniles was analogous. Some juveniles who had either committed an offense or were perceived to be in moral danger were dealt with within the system and based on procedural provisions. Others, however, were removed from the system and their treatment was assigned to private agents controlled by the political regime. These agents remained outside the safeguards, insufficient as they were, of correctional law and the supervision of Juvenile Judges.

  • 74 Law 1541 “On referring detained juveniles to the vocational agricultural and technical Schools of (...)
  • 75 The Royal National Institution was founded on 15 May 1947. President of the National Institution w (...)
  • 76 Art. 1 par. 1, Law 1541/1950.
  • 77 Introductory report on Law 2220/1952 “On amending Law 1616/1950 on ratifying Law 1541/1950 on refe (...)

48Juveniles removed from the system were supposed to be in moral danger as well. However, the moral risk these juveniles were assumed to face related to the perceived lack of appropriate “healthy” ideological and political convictions mandated in legislation enacted in 1950 and 195274. According to the introductory report of Law 2220/1952, referral of juveniles assumed to have committed criminal acts during the time of their “voluntary or involuntary participation in guerrilla groups” (during the Civil War) to the Schools of the National Institution75, a private welfare organization presided over by the King for “national, moral and religious instruction76” along with technical training was a “national need77”. Thus, juveniles up to 19 years of age (raised to 21 by the law of 1952) serving penal sentences or detained pending trial could be referred to the vocational, agricultural and technical Schools of the National Institution, by decision of the Minister of Justice at the suggestion of the National Institution.

  • 78 Based on its introductory report, it follows that the draftees of Law 2220/1952, in Troiannou-Loul (...)

49In light of this, treatment of juvenile delinquents defined in rather broad and politicized terms, became a vehicle for the support and reinforcement of the “appropriate” political ideology and the oppressive political regime ruling at the time. Experts and the expertise necessary for the effectuation of this goal were to be found outside the justice and correctional system, pointing not only to a “constitutional dualism” but a procedural one as well. The procedural dualism enacted by Laws 1541/1950 and 2220/1952 was severely criticized and met with strong resistance from legal scholars and practitioners as well as Ministry of Justice officials. Opposition to these laws was partially based on the unacceptability of the transfer of State authority on corrections to private agents and resulted in their being restrictively used78.

50The military junta of 1967-1974 maintained and capitalized on the repressive mechanism of ideological, political and social control established during the postwar and post-civil war era in Greece. Besides, the ideological motto of the junta “Country, State / Nation, Religion, Family”, did not greatly deviate from the ideological framework preceding it. Thus, the image of the ideal juvenile as a disciplined, obedient person subscribing to the ideals of the military dictatorship was promoted and propagated whilst the notion of risk and deviance was constructed in a top-down approach and interpreted in political terms. In this sense, any behavior which threatened or even questioned mainstream values was interpreted as morally risky. It might be argued, then, that during the military dictatorship and in relation to juvenile delinquency and justice, no legislative changes were necessary, since the ones in force adequately served the goal of social control.

  • 79 Legislative and political efforts continued to yield dubious results until 1981 when the socialist (...)
  • 80 Law 378/1976.
  • 81 Presidential Decree 891 “On defining the content of work of social workers”, Government Gazette, A (...)

51After the restoration of democracy in 1974, some of the components of the repressive mechanism and the operation of the shadow state established in the post-civil war era and sustained throughout the military dictatorship lingered on. To correct and reinstate the constituencies of a parliamentary democracy (with dubious results at times79) various legislative efforts were undertaken, as for example the Constitution of 1975. Pertaining to the juvenile justice system, legislative efforts dealt primarily with issues related to the reform and correctional aspects of the system. The Service of Supervisors of Minors was instituted and organized on a permanent and tenured basis80 whilst social workers were established as key experts in the system81. It can thus be argued that in the years right after the restoration of democracy, legislative efforts did not directly address issues related to risk. As to the interpretation of risk, Juvenile Judges remained the central experts; at the same time, experts and expertise considered essential to its operation were incorporated into the juvenile justice system. Given the role of Supervisors of Minors (in their majority social workers) assessing a juvenile’s personality, living conditions etc., it can be inferred that interpretation of risk, particularly the risk of moral danger, was to be determined on a scientific, empirical (and presumably objective) basis.

  • 82 Nestor Courakis, “Juvenile Delinquents and Penal Justice: Thoughts on the reevaluation of the curr (...)
  • 83 Manoledakis, for example, argues that special legislation on treatment of juveniles misconstrues t (...)

52At the same time, issues related to the juvenile justice system were addressed and examined theoretically from a criminological perspective, which had further implications for the understanding and legal repercussions of juvenile delinquency. Many of these theoretical debates and discussions took a critical stance towards the existing juvenile legislation and operation of the justice system and exposed its shortcomings, relating to the protection and promotion of juveniles’ procedural rights as well as civil liberties82. On the other hand, from a criminological perspective, there was some debate over the implications of the legal and scientific terminology used to describe offending juveniles, involving the formation of relevant legislation and the minors who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. In that respect, it can be argued that the notion of risk associated with juvenile delinquency was discussed in terms of the legalistic, welfare and protectionist model’s failure to deliver on its promise, namely the protection83, reform, rehabilitation and social reintegration of juveniles.

  • 84 Research conducted on the profile of the juvenile delinquents in Athens between 1985 and 1986 foun (...)
  • 85 Anthozoi Chaidou, Institutional and Noninstitutional Treatment of Juveniles in Greece and Abroad, (...)
  • 86 Based on available data, up until the end of the 1980’s, approximately 2/3 of girls in reform inst (...)
  • 87 Chaidou, Institutionalized…, p. 77, 100-102.

53Specifically addressing the issue of juveniles at risk, criminological theory and research at the time showed how implementation of the relevant provisions was used as an oppressive mechanism with pronounced social class bias and social discrimination components84. Moreover, it was noted that administrative measures designed for the treatment of juveniles at risk were implemented instead of welfare protective measures. For example, it was noted that orphaned and abandoned children were sent to reform institutions instead of more appropriate social welfare agencies; such agencies were and to a certain extent are still lacking in Greece85. Furthermore, empirical studies on the treatment of juveniles, resembling the situation in other countries, revealed a significant gender bias by which sexually abused girls in particular are penalized as victims86. In this case, however, questions arise as to the content of risk these girls are confronted with. That is, is risk associated with further victimization, or with engaging in purportedly ‘promiscuous’ behavior? And, if the risk is related to past or anticipated victimization, what is the sense of, as well as, the justification for depriving the victim of her liberty? The problematic and oppressive nature of the treatment of vulnerable juveniles notwithstanding, research showed that this measure was rarely implemented. Occasions of implementation of this measure exhibited declining trends87.

  • 88 Kalliopi D. Spinellis, “Juvenile Criminals or Juvenile Delinquents: The Issue in Light of the Labe (...)
  • 89 Leading criminologist Stergios Alexiadis was opposed to this change in terminology, arguing that t (...)

54Among the issues addressed in the criminological debates over the juvenile justice system and juvenile delinquency in general were issues relating to the terminology employed by the law in describing offending juveniles. The PC of 1950 dealt with issues of juvenile justice in a chapter entitled “Underage Criminals”. However, criminologists and penal law scholars argued that the term was not only scientifically outdated but stigmatizing to offending juveniles as well. Thus, in 1976, Kalliopi D. Spinellis explicitly argued for the adoption of the term juvenile delinquency88. This effort was successful and the proposed terminology was both adopted by criminologists89 and found its way into legal texts and documents.

55Politically stable and economically viable for over 15 years, in the beginning of the 1990’s Greece entered into a new socio-demographic situation whose impact can be seen in much criminological and sociological work, as well as in legislation and policies. Within this context, long-recognized (social scientists) and emerging (NGOs for example) experts shifted their attention to new elements of risk.

  • 90 Vassiliki Petoussi-Douli, “Greece”, in John Winterdyk, Georgios Antonopoulos (ed.), Racist Victimi (...)
  • 91 Petoussi-Douli, “Greece”, p. 159-160.

56For Greece, as well as other Southern European countries, the collapse of Central and Eastern European regimes in 1989 resulted in an influx of immigrants entering the country illegally to work and live clandestinely. The large number of immigrants entering the country and the lack of both a legislative framework and a strategic planning to deal with the situation, has led to frequent cases of administrative and legislative confusion, often making immigration appear as a massive and at times uncontrollable phenomenon90. Several socio-political interpretations of the phenomenon linked it to a real and/or perceived escalation of organized crime and spurred public debate over risk and safety. At the same time, and frequently as a response to such interpretations, other accounts of the phenomenon approached the notion of risk from a victimization perspective91.

  • 92 See for example: Vasso Artinopoulou, Antonis Magganas, Victimology and Aspects of Victimization, A (...)
  • 93 For example, the Greek Ombudsmanship was founded in 1998 and the Children’s Ombudsmanship in 2003; (...)

57On a broader level, criminological theory and research progressively focused on victimization in general and victimization of children in particular92. Regarding risk, experts shifted their attention from elements present or anticipated which presumably emanated from the juvenile, to elements directed against his/her physical and overall welfare. Research and theory on victimization influenced legislation and policies despite the fact that some took much longer to materialize than others93.

  • 94 In 1997 two such institutions were abolished as obsolete; one of the two boys’ institutions and th (...)
  • 95 Law 2298 “Mediation in private affairs-planning and implementation of correctional policy and othe (...)
  • 96 Art. 17 par. 5, Law 2298/1995.
  • 97 Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 47.
  • 98 Ibid., p. 42.

58Within this context, legislation enacted in 1995 renamed juvenile reformatories “Edification Institutes”94 and reaffirmed the provision of preventive detention by administrative order95. However, administrative orders could only be initiated in the case of juveniles “living in the social environment of people who habitually or professionally commit criminal acts96”. In this way, risk was restrictively specified to a juvenile’s interaction with a criminal environment which, arguably, does not include his or her family environment97 since preventive detention is conditional upon the parents’ or legal guardians’ consent. Acknowledged in this provision is the institutionalization’s adverse impact on juveniles, thus, pointing to an implicit assertion of risk as structurally embedded in certain features of the juvenile treatment system. At the same time, the family is endorsed as the appropriate environment for juvenile upbringing and parents’ autonomy in raising their children98 is respected.

  • 99 Ibid., p. 42, 48.

59Questions, however, arise in instances where the family environment is criminal or abusive and victimizing, for in such cases it cannot be expected that parents would tend to consent to the removal of their children from the home99. To the extent that the law endorses the family as the appropriate and therefore safe environment for children, its failure to see the potentiality of risk within the context of the family is explainable. Besides, domestic relations as potentially risky and harmful were not explicitly recognized until 2006 when the law on domestic violence was enacted. The fact remains that the possibility of juveniles being institutionalized and detained in order to prevent their victimization at home constitutes a problematic situation.

  • 100 Art. 2 Law 2298/1995.

60Additional changes initiated by Law 2298/1995 concerned the Societies of Protection of Minors. Based on the law, SPMs could provide “material and social support, vocational training, education, culture, entertainment or, if possible, housing to juveniles” as well as legal aid to minors who in any way come into contact with the juvenile justice system and to juveniles facing “considerable difficulties in social adjustment100”.

61Provisions relating to the level and range of expertise of the people constituting the Boards of SMPs are particularly noteworthy in this law: two faculty members with expertise in law or sociology and pedagogy (when necessary substituted for by teachers in secondary education) a lawyer, a child psychiatrist or psychologist or social worker (nominated by their respective Department or professional association) an economist and a lawyer alongside a supervisor of juveniles and a representative of the city council appointed by the Mayor. Furthermore, the law provided Societies with a significant level of autonomy, since except for a Supervisor of Minors, no other member of the justice system personnel was authorized to sit on the Board. Based on the above, it can be argued that the law aimed at upgrading the role of SPMs to the extent that it promoted an increased level and wider range of expertise and a significant degree of operational independence from the juvenile justice system. At the same time and probably more importantly, the areas of expertise provided for in the law point to an understanding of the elements of risk in empirical and practical rather than moral terms.

  • 101 Law 2331 “Prevention and combating of money laundering”, Government Gazette, A 173/24 August 1995; (...)

62Nevertheless, only four months after its enactment, the law was amended in shifting the focal interest of Societies back to juveniles at risk, with risk relating to potential engagement in deviant or criminal behavior101. Indicative of this shift are the changes introduced in Law 2331/1995 with respect to Board members’ expertise.

  • 102 Emphasis added.
  • 103 It remains hard to understand how all these qualities and characteristics, notably the commitment (...)

63According to the law, those who serve as members on the Board are people “distinguished for their special education and social sensitivity”, a judge or prosecutor, a tertiary or secondary education teacher, a supervisor of minors, a lawyer, a representative of the City Council or the Church, a medical doctor, a child psychiatrist if possible, or a psychologist, and a person with service, sensitivity and experience in “combating juvenile delinquency, preferably an engineer or an architect (!)102” Thus, overriding amendments and modifications introduced by Law 2298/1995 which provided for the function and operation of Societies on a rather professional, specialized and expertise-related basis, Law 2331/1995, in essence, reinstates the expertise and consequently the implicit notion of risk as it was originally conceptualized in Law 2724/1940. Those experts directly related to the socio-political and ideological climate of the time, such as the representative of the Patriotic Foundation and the Boy Scouts, for example, were dismissed, but the probability of a moral and value-based interpretation of risk was reasserted given that the emphasis is not put so much on the expertise of Board members but rather on their social status as well as their personal and social sensibility and commitment to combating juvenile deviance103.

  • 104 Law 3064 “Combating trafficking of human beings, crimes against sexual freedom, pornography involv (...)

64Scientific emphasis on victimization and critique of the legal framework’s shortcomings as to the treatment of juveniles led to the enactment of two pieces of legislation whose provisions were incorporated into the PC. The first is Law 3064/2002104 focusing on offenses committed within the framework of organized crime and (potentially) severely victimizing large numbers of people, women and children in particular. Thus, when directed at juveniles and children, criminal activities such as narcotics, pornography and sexual exploitation are strongly penalized by the law. In this respect, risk is perceived as emanating from organized crime activities which, in turn, relate to social, economic and other types of inequality and discrimination operating at the international level and impacting on the lives of vulnerable groups and individuals. Children and young people (women, illegal immigrants and refugees as well) are particularly at risk within this context. The law aims to protect these groups by severely punishing their aggressors.

65In parallel, the law aims for (at least partial) restitution in cases of harm, to the extent that it provides for victim assistance. These provisions demonstrate the law’s contempt for such crimes, contributes somewhat to the empowerment of their victims as their powerlessness is requisite to committing these crimes, and albeit not always successful, alleviates certain aspects of their detrimental victimization impact.

  • 105 Introductory report on Law 3189/2003.

66The second piece of legislation in focus is Law 3189/2003, the latest amendment to juvenile legislation, which interprets risk as partially emanating from the very operation of the system. To this end, arguably in the shift from a welfare to a justice model, changes were introduced in the operation of juvenile courts and the juvenile justice system in general, thus safeguarding the procedural rights of juveniles (e.g. right to an appeal, determinate length of sentences, etc.). Furthermore, although the Juvenile Judge retains the authority to initiate an administrative order for preventive detention, the strict definition of related risk, the requirement of parental consent and the law’s introductory report’s mandate that detention, even for offending juveniles (much less for those at risk) be used only as a last resort105, were conditions that made the enforcement of this measure practically impossible.

67With the minimization of risk related to the operation of the system in view, the law provided for the reorganization of juvenile reformatories (renamed Special Youth Detention Centers) and the establishment of other centers and/or agents entrusted with the reform, re-education and overall social reintegration of offending minors. However, legislation related to these centers has yet to be drafted and enacted.

  • 106 Artinopoulou, “Victim Offender Mediation…”.

68Considered from a restorative justice perspective, practices such as victim compensation, victim offender mediation and community service are put at the disposal of the Court. Fostering assumption of individual responsibility on the part of the young offender, addressing the victim’s needs and implementing non-stigmatizing processes and procedures thus constitute the pivotal points in the operation of the juvenile justice system106.

  • 107 Vasso Artinopoulou, “The ‘Grey’ Areas of Restorative Justice”, in The Art of Crime, vol. 12, Novem (...)

69Within this context, risk is related to the disturbance of the relationship between victim and offender and it is this relationship that needs to be reinstated. In the case of juveniles, it is the duty of each individual who has harmed another to assume responsibility for compensation and alleviation, to the extent possible, of their actions’ consequences. To this end, the Judge and the juvenile justice system serve as facilitators rather than redistributors107.

70Although indirectly related to perceptions of risk, aspects of the juvenile justice personnel’s expertise and training may have an indirect negative impact on efforts to minimize system-induced risk. That is, given the emphasis and importance placed by the law on elements of restorative justice, the Juvenile Judges’ and the Supervisors of Minors’ lack of practical training and expertise in mediation may hinder successful implementation of relevant measures.

71Overall then, it can be argued that perceptions, interpretations and responses to the notion of risk underlie much of the juvenile justice system’s operation and juvenile legislation. In relation to offending juveniles, interpretations of risk tend to be restrictive and dependent upon legal regulations. On the other hand, ideological, political and moral elements have persisted in the reification of juveniles at risk. In more recent years perceptions of risk moved away from broad and general categories and placed emphasis on elements of victimization. In any case, there remains a definite interconnection between socio-cultural, political, ideological and moral constructs and scientific theories and research on the varying interpretations and perceptions of risk.

4. Conclusion

72Juvenile delinquency in Greece has been consistently addressed within the context of penal law. To that extent, it can be argued that juvenile delinquency law is, in effect, penal law whose specific core principles, such as liability or the trial’s publicity have been adjusted to the precept of special treatment for juveniles. However, core principles of the PC never lose their primacy either in penal law in general or in juvenile delinquency law in particular. Juvenile Judges and Prosecutors, the main protagonists in the application of juvenile delinquency legislation, are selected from among the penal courts’ personnel and consider the standard (adult) penal courts their first responsibility.

73Moreover, even when (as is often the case) it is informed by sciences such as criminology or sociology, juvenile delinquency legislation mainly depends on legal constructs, and the law’s implementation and on legal experts. This dependence upon legal (if not legalistic) elements in the treatment of juvenile delinquency has remained constant throughout the various reforms and amendments.

74Within this context, the centrality of the Juvenile Judges’ role has remained constant; Juvenile Judges have extensive discretionary powers which they exercise in order to decide upon the appropriate treatment of juveniles on an individual basis. In this respect, Juvenile Judges routinely engage in interpretations concerning, for example, the circumstances of the offense, the juvenile’s personality, the potential risk of engaging in future deviant/criminal behavior, etc. In exercising their duties, therefore, Juvenile Judges act as experts in assessing present and anticipated juvenile behavior. However, as has been repeatedly indicated in this paper, Juvenile Judges are legal experts who, as a rule, are lacking in expertise (even in specialized training) in human behavior, psychology of juveniles, social sciences and the like.

75For the most part, in order to make their assessments and reach their verdict for each individual case, Juvenile Judges depend on interpretations of legal constructs and more importantly on concepts such as risk. The interpretation of concepts such as risk is central to the Juvenile Judges’ role as well as to the effective operation of the juvenile justice system.

76As has been shown above, over the years, the construction of risk, as well as the relevant interpretations, has largely depended on ideological constructs, mutually reinforced by the socio-political circumstances framing particular historical periods. Based on these interpretations, implemented responses have ranged from reform and social reintegration of deviant or offending juveniles to the support and reinforcement of political regimes and/or the propagation of political and social ideals. As such the interpretation of risk and the corresponding treatment of juveniles were based on value judgments not so much on his/her behavior, but rather on the person himself/herself. Implied in these interpretations was a comparison between the ‘normal’ juvenile and the ‘deviant’ juvenile. From this comparison were abstracted the characteristics defining the prototypical, the ideal juvenile as healthy, disciplined, goal-oriented, socially well-adjusted and subscribing to the dominant values and lifestyles. As its bipolar opposite, the prototypical deviant was perceived as muddled, incorrigible, socially maladjusted and defiant towards the dominant values and lifestyles. Risk was thus reified as a state of affairs in contrast or in opposition to the hierarchically and morally superior ideal young person. Hence, in the case of juvenile delinquency, during several historical periods the political regime ruling at the time assumed the role of ‘moral entrepreneur’ with the power of appointing selected legal experts to committees which prepared relevant legislation for defining the operating principles of the system of corrections as well as deciding on the types of experts and expertise which best served its political purposes, masked as moral ideals and social order.

77To this end, and over extended periods of time, as peripheral and supportive of the Judges’ assigned central role, persons and agents sharing the ruling ideology assisted in its implementation. Albeit in very broad and general terms, such persons and agents might be characterized as experts within the system. Moreover, in treating the deviant, experts directly associated with the juvenile justice system (Judges, Prosecutors, Supervisors etc.) or experts peripherally supporting the system (SPMs for example) assumed the task of bringing the juvenile back on track by infusing into him/her the proper ideals, values, goals and aspirations through various mechanisms of observation and surveillance.

78It is only relatively recently, and especially since 1975, that experts in a narrow sense have come to be associated with the juvenile justice system’s operation. Currently, these experts are almost exclusively registered social workers and, in practice, it is these social workers who provide the Judge with the evaluation of the personality and other characteristics of the juvenile who comes into contact with the law. However, social workers employed in the juvenile justice system are still not required to have any specific training in handling juvenile delinquents. Consequently, the skills, tools and training these experts have acquired during their education and/or professional engagement elsewhere are applied (usually to the best of their abilities) in order to handle juvenile delinquency cases.

79Other kinds of experts, such as criminologists or social scientists in general, did at times exert influences on the juvenile justice system. However, for the most part, criminological and social sciences expertise tended to be incorporated into legislation and implemented through evaluation and interpretation by legal experts engaging in drafting and/or applying the relevant laws. In this respect, although the influence of criminology and other social sciences can be identified in several legislative efforts, their impact has been rather indirect.

80Overall, it can be argued that the treatment of juvenile delinquency in Greece has strong legalistic and paternalistic elements and has largely depended on two types of identifiable experts: legal experts and social workers. While the likelihood of error in areas assessing appropriate juvenile behavior never really disappears, especially in circumstances fostering value judgments and interpretations, reactions to deviance and the potentiality thereof have gradually made room for individual expression and autonomy, as evidenced by various alternatives currently available in juvenile treatment (mediation, community service, etc.). However, legalism, paternalism and social construction of risk continue to resist the long transition from punitive to restorative justice.

Notes

1 Art. 85 Penal Law of 1834 in Nestror E. Courakis, “The institutional framework of juvenile law (Greece and Europe)”, 2006, p. 2 [in Greek], available electronically at http://www.niotho-asfalis.gr/na/meletes16.pdf, retrieved on 3 May 2010.

2 Courakis, “The institutional framework…”, p. 2.

3 This notation refers to: number of legal text/number of year published in the Government Gazette.

4 Government Gazette A 14/1919.

5 Government Gazette A 1931. The law was enacted on 1st January 1940. The first hearing of the juvenile court in Athens took place on 14 January 1940. Kalliopi D. Spinellis, Greek Law of Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A Legal Branch in Formation, Athens-Komotini, Ant. N. Sakkoulas, p. 36; Vassiliki Petoussi, Kalliopi Stavrou, “Greece”, in Donald J. Shoemaker (ed.), International Handbook on Juvenile Delinquency, Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1996, p. 146-159. This law reflected the overall European tendency towards a socially sensitive approach to the newly discovered and celebrated underage youth. Its content was progressive but the proposed innovations required a lengthy preparatory stage which led to consecutive postponements. Aggeliki Pitsela, The Penal Treatment of Juvenile Criminality, 2nd edition, Thessaloniki, Sakkoulas Publishing, 1998, p. 23 [in Greek]; Aglaia Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation of Juveniles [in Greek], Athens-Komotini, Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 1987, p. 129-130.

6 Law 2135 “On the adjudication of crimes of juveniles”, Government Gazette A 533/1939.

7 Law 2724 “On the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories”, Government Gazette A 449/1940.

8 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories», in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 241.

9 Courakis, “Institutional framework…”, p. 3-4.

10 Law 3315 “On supplementing juvenile courts’ and treatment of juveniles’ laws in force”, Government Gazette A 203/1995.

11 According to the PC, the CPPL and Law 3315/1955 reform measures include: reprimand by the Court, placement under the responsible supervision of parents and guardians, placement under the supervision of juvenile probation officers and placement in a reformatory. Curative measures are ordered for juveniles suffering from serious mental or physical health problems and/or addiction problems. Sentencing to a reformatory is the only security measure provided for. Petoussi, Stavrou, “Greece”, p.150-151; Angelika Pitsela, “Greece: Criminal Responsibility of Minors in the International and National Legal Orders”, in International Review of Penal Law/Revue Internationale de Droit Penal, 75 (1-2), 2004, p. 355-378.

12 Pitsela, “Greece: Criminal Responsibility...”, p. 356; Calliope D. Spinellis, Aglaia Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice System in Greece”, in J. Junger-TAS, S. H. Decker (ed.), International Handbook of Juvenile Justice, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, p. 309-324.

13 Introductory report on Law 3315/1955 in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 142.

14 Pitsela, “Greece: Criminal Responsibility...”, p. 365.

15 Government Gazette A 243/21 October 2003.

16 Nestor E. Courakis, “The New Greek Legislation on Deviant Minors (l. 3189/203). From Law in the Books to Law in Action”, in Poinikos Logos 1, 2004, p. 1-6 [in Greek].

17 Introductory report on the draft law “Reform of juvenile penal legislation”, Hellenic Parliament, available in http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/7b24652e-78eb-4807-9d68-e9a5d4576eff/A-PINANI-EPIS.pdf, retrieved 15 April 2003.

18 Spinellis, Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice…”, p. 320.

19 Art. 45A PC; Spinellis , Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice…”, p. 320-321.

20 Spinellis, Greek Law of Juvenile Offenders and Victims…, p. 104, 37.

21 Petoussi, Stavrou, “Greece”, p. 152.

22 Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 203, 201.

23 According to Greek penal law, based on the provided for sanctions, offenses are classified as petty offenses, misdemeanors or felonies (art 18 PC).

24 Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 202.

25 Art. 122 par. 2a and 2b PC.

26 Spinellis, Tsitsoura, “The Emerging Juvenile Justice…”, p. 320.

27 Art 7, par. 2 CPPL states that it is preferable that judges speak a foreign language such as English, French, German or Italian (art. 7 par. 2 CPPL); Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 203-204.

28 Artinopoulou, “Victim Offender Mediation…”.

29 Petoussi, Stavrou “Greece”, p 152; Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 81-82.

30 Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 218.

31 Art. 1 Law 2724/1940; Explanatory report on the draft law: “On the organization and operation of juvenile reformatories”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 242. Juveniles who although being destitute are not perceived to be in moral danger as well as juveniles who suffer from health and/or mental health problems, stand outside the jurisdiction and interest of the juvenile correctional mechanism as defined in art. 2 of Law 2724/1940.

32 Art. 3 Law 2724/1940.

33 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation…”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 245-246.

34 Art. 2 Law 2724/1940.

35 Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 207-208, 219.

36 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation…”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 245.

37 Under different names and organizational schemes, this organization has been providing welfare services (social and medical services for mothers and children, family planning and counseling, etc.) since 1914. In 1998 the Foundation was incorporated into a larger welfare scheme, the National Organization for Social Care. (Compiled from information available at the electronic site of the Pediatric Association of Northern Greece, http://www.peve.gr/teyxos3.htm, retrieved on 2 May 2010.

38 Art. 12 last par. Law 2724/1940.

39 In relation to SPMs, the law appears to be particularly gender sensitive and concerned that both men and women take part in the Societies’ activities as well as administration.

40 Art. 12 par. 6 law 2724/1940.

41 Howard S. Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York, The Free Press, 1963, p. 147-164.

42 Introductory report on Law 2793/1954 “On organizing a Service of Supervisors of Minors adjunct to the Juvenile Courts”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 147.

43 Law 2793 “On organizing a Service of Supervisors of Minors adjunct to the Juvenile Courts”, Government Gazette, A 52/1954.

44 Art. 1 and 2 Law 2793/1954.

45 Art. 5 Law 2793/1954; Introductory report on Law 2793/1954 “On the Service of Supervisors of Minors”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 149.

46 Legal decree 3811 “On extending certain provisions of legal decree 3379/1955 ‘on public education personnel’ on the education personnel of juvenile reformatories”, Government Gazette, A 20/1958.

47 The Queen’s Welfare Foundation was founded on 10 July 1947 and gave legal entity status to an extended fund-raising project undertaken by Queen Frideriki, purportedly aimed at assisting the population of Northern Greece on whom World War II, and the Civil War in particular, had a significantly negative impact. Operationally, this organization was accorded a special, rather flexible status as to the hiring, firing and paying of personnel. Flexible as well as remarkably prosperous, this organization was able to provide salaries but not guarantee job stability for Supervisors of Minors.

48 Art. 9 Law 2793/1954.

49 Law 378 “On establishing the branch and tenured positions of Supervisors of Minors adjunct to the Juvenile Courts, and regulations concerning pertinent issues”, Government Gazette, A 171/1976.

50 Presidential Decree 49 “On the Operation of the Service of Supervisors of Minors”, Government Gazette, A 11/1979.

51 Nonetheless, a number of restorative justice and peer mediation programs have been implemented since 2000. Vasso Artinopoulou, “Victim Offender Mediation in Family Violence Cases: the Greek Experience”, in Maria Kranidioti (ed.), Criminology and European Crime Policy-Essays in Honor of Aglaia Tsitsoura, 2009, Athens-Thessaloniki, Sakkoulas Publications, p. 367-379.

52 Explanatory report on the draft law “On the organization and operation…”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 242.

53 Ibidem, p. 244.

54 Ibid., p.246; Art. 2 par. 4 and 5 of Law 2724/1940; Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 38-39.

55 After the war in Asia Minor which ended in 1922 and resulted in the defeat of the Greek army, approximately 1,500,000 refugees fled to Greece.

56 Ioannis Metaxas declared his dictatorship in August 1936 and for years competed with King George II for popularity and influence.

57 Marina Petrakis, The Metaxas Myth: Dictatorship and Propaganda in Greece, London: I.B.Tauris & Co, 2006.

58 This type of approach remained dominant in the years following World War II and the Civil War in Greece. Specifically targeted during these years were orphaned and unprotected children whose parents were victims either of World War II and the Civil War or the political persecutions that ensued. The treatment and protection of such children became the favorite project of Queen Frideriki and remains a thorny topic even today. The Queen’s Welfare Foundation founded and operated orphanages and other centers which provided institutionalized care for children, many of whom were the children of exiled and/or imprisoned communist or left-wing partisans. For a more extensive account on the subject, see among others: Mando Daliani-Karampatzaki, Children in Turmoil during the Greek Civil War 1946-1949: Today’s Adults. A Longitudinal Study on Children Confined with their Mothers in Prison, Stockholm, Karolinska Intsitutet, 1994; Catherine Panter-Brick, Malcolm T. Smith, Abandoned Children, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

59 Paul Weindling, “Human Experiments and Nazi Genocide: a Problematic Legacy», in Review of Bioethics 1(1), Autumn 2007-Winter 2008, available in http://www.bioethicsreview.uoc.gr/Vol1/Issue1/v1i1ae1_Weindling.pdf, retrieved on 2 May 2010; Hilary ROSE, “From Nuremburg to Informed Consent in the 21st Century”, in Review of Bioethics 1(1), Autumn 2007-Winter 2008, available in http://www.bioethicsreview.uoc.gr/Vol1/Issue1/v1i1ae2_Rose.pdf, retrieved on 2 May 2010.

60 Kalliopi D. Spinellis (ed.), Constantinos G. Gardikas: The Founder of Criminology in Greece, Athens, Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000.

61 Law 3315 “On supplementing legislation on juvenile courts and treatment of juveniles”, Government Gazette, A 203/1955.

62 Introductory report on Law 3315/1955 “On supplementing legislation on juvenile courts and treatment of juveniles”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 142.

63 Ibid., p. 142.

64 Circular 73, “On the basic operating principles of juvenile Courts and the possibilities for improving their practices”, Ministry of Justice, 19 November 1953, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 447-463.

65 Circular 73/19/12/1953, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 448.

66 From this circular it can be deduced that preventive detention on the grounds of moral danger was frequently decided upon by parents’ and guardians’ request, with which the Juvenile Judges concurred without further investigation. Juvenile justice personnel were urged to distrust the motives of such parents and even consider charging them with abandonment and endangerment of minors. In this sense, the author of the circular sees the risk of moral danger as stemming from the parents’ behavior and conduct. Circular 73/19/12/1953, p. 456.

67 Constantinos G. Gardikas, “Underage Criminals”, in Poinika Xronika 1, 1951, p. 212-223 [in Greek].

68 Mark Mazower (ed), After the War was Over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation and State in Greece, 1943-1960, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2000.

69 Constantinos Tsoucalas, “The Ideological Impact of the Civil War”, in John O. Iatrides (ed.), Greece in the 1940s: A Nation in Crisis, Hanover, NH, University Press of New England, 1981, p. 319-342; Constantinos Tsoucalas, State, Society, War in Postwar Greece, Athens, Themelio, 1986, p. 82-136 [in Greek]; Minas Samatas, Surveillance in Greece: From Anticommunist to Consumer Surveillance, Athens, Pella, p. 31.

70 Samatas, Surveillance…, p. 30-31.

71 Ibid., p. 34.

72 The term is suggested by Nicos C. Alivizatos, “The ‘Emergency Regime’ and Civil Liberties 1946-1949”, in Iatrides, Greece in the 1940s…, p. 220-229.

73 Samatas, Surveillance…, p. 34.

74 Law 1541 “On referring detained juveniles to the vocational agricultural and technical Schools of the National Foundation”, Government Gazette, A 247/1950; Law 2220 “On amending Law 1616/1950 on ratifying Law 1541/1950 on referring detained juveniles to the vocational, agricultural and technical Schools of the National Foundation”, Government Gazette, A 269/1952.

75 The Royal National Institution was founded on 15 May 1947. President of the National Institution was the King, vice-president the Archbishop of Athens and members of the Board academics and University Professors selected by the King. The goal of this Institution was the “elevation of the moral, the living, the social and the educational standards of the Greek people”. Among the projects realized by the National Institution include the establishment of fourteen “vocational agricultural schools”, five “schools of mechanical cultivation”, three schools of home economics, and four “vocational technical schools”, one of which was designed to host “misled guerilla children” (on the island of Leros) and another (on the island of Kos) “underage criminals”. Furthermore, in 1951, as part of the National Institution, the National Center was founded for the training of teachers, policemen, social workers and community clerks. The propaganda element of the National Institution notwithstanding, it can be argued that its activities covered a wide array of social services. In 1982 the National Institution was renamed the National Youth Institution. To this day, the National Youth Institution continues its welfare activities which include running the University students’ Housing Centers.

76 Art. 1 par. 1, Law 1541/1950.

77 Introductory report on Law 2220/1952 “On amending Law 1616/1950 on ratifying Law 1541/1950 on referring detained juveniles to the practical agricultural and technical Schools of the National Foundation”, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, p. 132.

78 Based on its introductory report, it follows that the draftees of Law 2220/1952, in Troiannou-Loula, The Penal Legislation…, were fully aware of the problems associated with the regulations introduced. However, they were willing to overlook these problems and bend procedural rules in the face of the “national need” for the “restoration of morally fallen youth”. Introductory report on Law 2220/1952, p. 132.

79 Legislative and political efforts continued to yield dubious results until 1981 when the socialist party Panhellenic Socialist Party (PASOK) won the elections and formed a new government; Samatas, Surveillance…, p. 39-40, 47.

80 Law 378/1976.

81 Presidential Decree 891 “On defining the content of work of social workers”, Government Gazette, A 213/1978.

82 Nestor Courakis, “Juvenile Delinquents and Penal Justice: Thoughts on the reevaluation of the current penal law on juveniles”, in Nomiko Vima, 34, 1986, p. 175-179 [in Greek]; Ioannis Manoledakis, “Childhood as an autonomous independent legal right», in Nomiko Vima, 32(9), 1984, p. 110-1114 (in Greek).

83 Manoledakis, for example, argues that special legislation on treatment of juveniles misconstrues the issue of minors’ protection. According to him, the emphasis in the law should be placed on the protection of children and minors from behaviors and situations harmful to them. For this to be accomplished, argues Manoledakis, childhood should be declared a legal right independently protected by the penal law. Manoledakis, “Childhood…”, p. 1112-1114.

84 Research conducted on the profile of the juvenile delinquents in Athens between 1985 and 1986 found that juveniles in moral danger tended to be between 13-18 years of age. Almost 70 % of them came from single-parent families, 20 % of their fathers and 50 % of their mothers had not completed elementary school education, 70 % were manual workers while for approximately 81 % of the total sample, housing conditions were unsatisfactory. Kalliopi Spinellis, Z. Loutsi, “Social Inequality and ‘moral transgression’ of juveniles”, in Panteion University (ed.) Tribute to the Memory of Hlias Daskalakis, 1991, p. 606-24 [in Greek]; Stratos Georgoulas, Juvenile Deviance: Theoretical, Empirical Approach and Policies, Athens, Kapsimi, 2009, p. 123 [in Greek].

85 Anthozoi Chaidou, Institutional and Noninstitutional Treatment of Juveniles in Greece and Abroad, Athens, Nomiki Vivliothiki, 1990, p. 83 [in Greek].

86 Based on available data, up until the end of the 1980’s, approximately 2/3 of girls in reform institutions were sent there on administrative orders. Chaidou, Institutionalized…, p. 83.

87 Chaidou, Institutionalized…, p. 77, 100-102.

88 Kalliopi D. Spinellis, “Juvenile Criminals or Juvenile Delinquents: The Issue in Light of the Labeling Theory”, in Poinika Xronika, 26, 1976, p. 785 [in Greek].

89 Leading criminologist Stergios Alexiadis was opposed to this change in terminology, arguing that the terms “underage criminals” and “juvenile criminality” refer to minors who have already engaged in offending behavior. Moreover, he argued, measures imposed on these juveniles, even that of detention, are never considered penal sanctions. In that respect, he holds, the content of behavior for which any type of measure may be imposed on a juvenile is clearly defined, thus augmenting rather than restricting the goal of protection of juveniles. On the other hand, the terms ‘deviant behavior’ or ‘juvenile delinquency’ tend to refer to unspecified behaviors, thus being subject to interpretation. Stergios Alexiadis, “‘Criminality’ or ‘Delinquency’ of Juveniles?”, in Poinika Xronika, 36, p. 113-120.

90 Vassiliki Petoussi-Douli, “Greece”, in John Winterdyk, Georgios Antonopoulos (ed.), Racist Victimization: International Reflections and Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 139-168.

91 Petoussi-Douli, “Greece”, p. 159-160.

92 See for example: Vasso Artinopoulou, Antonis Magganas, Victimology and Aspects of Victimization, Athens, Nomiki Vivliothiki, 1996 [in Greek]; Ira Emke-Poulopoulos, Trafficking in Women and Children: Greece a Country of Destination and Transit, Athens, Institute for the Study of the Greek Economy (IMEO)-Greek Society of Demographic Studies, 2001; Vassilis Karydis, “Criminality or Criminalization of Migrants in Greece?”, in Vincenzo Ruggiero, Nigel South, Ian Taylor (ed.), The New European Criminology: Crime and Social Order in Europe, London and New York, Routledge, 1998, p. 350-367; Gabriella Lazaridis, “Trafficking and Prostitution: The Growing Exploitation of Migrant Women in Greece”, in The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2001, 8(1), p. 67-102; Spinellis, Greek Law of Juvenile Offenders and Victims…; Vasso Artinopoulou, Violence in School: Research and Policies in Europe, Athens, Metaixmio, 2001, [in Greek].

93 For example, the Greek Ombudsmanship was founded in 1998 and the Children’s Ombudsmanship in 2003; de jure abolition of the death penalty in 1993 (art. 33, Law 2172/1993) and enactment of the law on domestic violence in 2006 (Law 3005/2006).

94 In 1997 two such institutions were abolished as obsolete; one of the two boys’ institutions and the only girls’ institution (PD 180/1997). Currently there is only one juvenile correctional facility for boys, while girls are detained in a separate section of the women’s prison in Athens. This situation adds to the overall problematic situation of women’s correctional facilities.

95 Law 2298 “Mediation in private affairs-planning and implementation of correctional policy and other regulations”, Government Gazette A 62/4 April 1995; Art. 17 Law 2298/1995.

96 Art. 17 par. 5, Law 2298/1995.

97 Pitsela, The Penal Treatment…, p. 47.

98 Ibid., p. 42.

99 Ibid., p. 42, 48.

100 Art. 2 Law 2298/1995.

101 Law 2331 “Prevention and combating of money laundering”, Government Gazette, A 173/24 August 1995; Art. 2 Law 2331/1995.

102 Emphasis added.

103 It remains hard to understand how all these qualities and characteristics, notably the commitment to combating juvenile deviance, are presumed included in the professional profiles of specialists like engineers and architects!

104 Law 3064 “Combating trafficking of human beings, crimes against sexual freedom, pornography involving minors and overall economic exploitation of sexual freedom and assistance to the victims of such criminal acts”, Government Gazette, A 248/15 October 2002.

105 Introductory report on Law 3189/2003.

106 Artinopoulou, “Victim Offender Mediation…”.

107 Vasso Artinopoulou, “The ‘Grey’ Areas of Restorative Justice”, in The Art of Crime, vol. 12, November 2009, http://www.theartofcrime.gr, retrieved on 3 May 2010.

Auteurs

(University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens)
Vasso Artinopoulou is Vice Rector of Economic Affairs and Development at the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, in Athens, Greece, and Associate Professor of Criminology at the Department of Psychology. Her research interests involve restorative justice, social mediation, juvenile delinquency, gender issues, social movements, family violence, and victimology. Her major publications include : V. Artinopoulou, Domestic violence against women, Nomiki Bibliothiki Publications, Athens, 2006 (in greek) ; V. Artinopoulou & Th. Papatheodorou, Sexual Harassment against women in Greece, Nomiki Bibliothiki Publications, Athens, 2006 (in greek) ; V. Artinopoulou, , « School Violence in Greece. Research Overview and Coping Strategies », in E. Debarbieux and C. Blaya (eds), Violence in schools. Ten approaches in Europe, Paris, ESF, 2001, p. 111-26 (in English and French).

(University of Crete)
Vassiliki Petoussi is Assistant Professor in Sociology of Law and Deviance at the Department of Sociology of the University of Crete. She is actually working on Sociology of Law and Deviance, Criminology, Gender, Feminist Theory and Bioethics. Her major publications include: V. Petoussi-Douli, « Greece », in J. Winterdyk & G. Antonopoulos (ed.), Racist Victimization: International Reflections and Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2008, p. 139-168; V. Petoussi, « Feminist Criminology: Theses and Prepositions », in S. Georgoulas (ed), Criminology in Contemporary Greece. Volume in Honour of St. Alexiadis, Athens, KAPSIMI, 2007, p. 126-144 (in Greek); V. Petoussi, « Feminist Voices in the Law: Debating Equality, Neutrality and Objectivity », In Y. Papageorgiou (ed), Gendering Transformations, University of Crete, Emedia, 2007, p. 351-365.

© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2011

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540