Judicial Implications of the Appointment of a Judge for Children Who Determines a Diversion Conference That Does Not Meet the Requirements for Diversion Implementation

This paper discusses the juridical implications of the appointment of a Juvenile Judge whose diversion conference implementation does not meet the requirements for diversion. It is structured based on doctrinal research findings, employing a legislative approach and conceptual analysis utilizing teleological interpretation. The research findings indicate that the juridical implications of appointing a Juvenile Judge whose diversion conference implementation does not meet the requirements for diversion lie in the action of the Juvenile Judge in prescribing diversion despite not meeting the mandatory diversion provisions, which, when solely considered from a grammatical interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Law, constitutes an ultra petite action. However, when viewed from a teleological interpretation, the Juvenile Judge's action aligns with the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Law, namely to keep children away from judicial processes to avoid stigmatization. Moreover, even if the judge takes an ultra-petite action, it is based on the principle of the best interests of the child, as long as the contents of the diversion agreement do not contradict the Law, religion, local community norms, morality, or contain elements that the child cannot implement, or exhibit lousy faith, then the Chief Judge should still issue a Decree on the Diversion Agreement.