Diversion without structural decarceration: Penal governance and youth justice reform in Vietnam

Introduction

Diversion has become a central feature of contemporary youth justice reform. Anchored in the principle that detention should be used only as a measure of last resort under Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, diversion is widely associated with decarceration, reduced stigma, and proportionate responses to youth offending (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2019; UN General Assembly, 1989; United Nations, 1990). Across jurisdictions, the expansion of diversionary mechanisms is frequently presented as evidence of a shift away from punitive intervention towards educational and developmental approaches (Muncie, 2015). In policy discourse, diversion often functions as shorthand for moderation, signalling an institutional retreat from custody and formal adjudication (Tonry, 2016). Yet the expansion of alternatives to custody does not necessarily entail a contraction of penal intervention. Penal systems often respond to reform pressures through recalibration, incorporating reformist vocabularies while preserving underlying structures of authority (Garland, 2001). From this perspective, the presence of diversion does not automatically indicate decarceration. It instead raises an institutional question about how diversion is positioned within existing governance architectures and how that positioning shapes its practical effects.

Vietnam’s Juvenile Justice Law 2024 (JJL 2024) provides a particularly instructive case through which to examine this question. The statute formally elevates diversion as the organising principle of youth justice reform and articulates educational and rehabilitative objectives framed in the language of international child rights standards. It establishes a structured framework of diversionary measures within a standalone legislative instrument dedicated to youth justice. At first glance, this legislative move appears to signal a significant normative shift from youth offending embedded within ordinary criminal law towards a differentiated and diversion-oriented model. The analytical issue, however, is not whether diversion has been introduced but how it is institutionally embedded. Under the JJL 2024, diversion becomes available only after formal case initiation, eligibility is structured by offence-based criteria, diversionary measures may include placement in educational institutions or community-based supervision, and continuation depends on monitored compliance, with non-compliance potentially leading to intensified measures within the diversionary framework rather than an unconditional exit from penal governance. These features suggest that diversion remains embedded within the authority structure of prosecution, operating inside the prosecutorial lifecycle of the case rather than at the threshold of criminalisation. Comparative scholarship on youth justice reform has emphasised that the institutional location of diversion within procedural sequences significantly shapes its practical effects and its relationship to formal criminalisation (Bateman, 2020; Muncie, 2015).

This article asks whether diversion under the JJL 2024 represents structural decarceration or instead recalibrates penal intervention while preserving centralised authority. It argues that diversion in the Vietnamese model operates as an embedded technique within prosecutorial governance. Sequenced after formal designation, filtered through hierarchical discretion, and maintained through compliance monitoring and possible internal escalation, diversion moderates intervention in individual cases without redistributing the institutional locus of control. Drawing on theories of penal governance (Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008) and labelling (Becker, 1963; McAra and McVie, 2007), this article analyses diversion as an institutional mechanism rather than a normative ideal. The analysis draws on the statutory framework governing diversion, legislative drafting materials, institutional reports of the Supreme People’s Court, selected Vietnamese legal scholarship on diversion under the JJL 2024, and empirical and policy materials on child justice institutions in Vietnam (Le, 2024; Le and Le, 2025; Mai, 2025; Ministry of Justice and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2019; Nguyen, 2025; Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam (SPCV), 2024b, 2024c). These materials provide domestic context for the statutory analysis while keeping the article’s primary focus on the institutional design of diversion.

The comparative significance lies not in treating Vietnam as exceptional but in examining how global reform vocabulary is absorbed into a particular institutional architecture. The Vietnamese case illustrates how diversion can be institutionalised within a centrally coordinated prosecutorial system, beyond the police-led and community-based models that dominate much comparative youth justice literature (Goldson and Muncie, 2015; Muncie, 2015). The JJL 2024 therefore broadens understanding of how diversionary reform travels across legal systems and becomes reshaped by domestic structures of penal governance (Muncie 2005; Goldson and Muncie, 2015; Husa, 2018).

The article makes three contributions to comparative youth justice scholarship. First, it develops an institutional framework for evaluating diversion by foregrounding sequencing, discretion, eligibility thresholds, compliance monitoring, and internal escalation rather than relying solely on aggregate custody rates or formal compliance with international standards (Muncie, 2015). Second, it demonstrates how offence-based eligibility criteria, compliance review, and supervisory escalation shape the scope and stability of diversion, a concern central to comparative research on diversionary regimes (Bateman, 2020; Schwalbe et al., 2012). Third, it uses the concept of restorative mimicry as a descriptive term capturing the patterned coexistence of reform-oriented framing and prosecutorial continuity in statutory design.

Diversion, penal governance, and institutional sequencing

Within comparative youth justice scholarship, diversion is often conceptualised as a mechanism designed to interrupt criminalisation and limit the criminogenic effects of formal court processing (McAra and McVie, 2007; Muncie, 2015). International standards reinforce this orientation. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and subsequent interpretive guidance encourage states to avoid judicial proceedings where appropriate and to prioritise diversion and community-based responses (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2019; UN General Assembly, 1989). In policy narratives, diversion often functions as evidence of decarceration. When a system expands diversionary measures, it is commonly assumed that punitive intervention is correspondingly reduced (Bateman, 2020; Petrosino et al., 2010; Schwalbe et al., 2012).

This assumption, however, requires closer scrutiny. Criminological scholarship has long questioned whether the introduction of alternatives necessarily contracts penal authority. Cohen’s (1985) analysis of net widening demonstrated that community-based measures and diversionary schemes may reorganise rather than reduce the reach of social control. Alternative categories can extend supervision into domains that were previously untouched or repackage coercive practices under new labels. The appearance of moderation may coexist with institutional continuity. Garland (2001) further argues that penal systems respond to reform pressures through adaptive recalibration. Reformist vocabularies are incorporated into existing structures, while institutional capacity remains intact. Penal governance does not dissolve under normative critique but adapts through reorganisation and recalibration (Garland, 2001).

From this perspective, diversion cannot be evaluated solely by reference to its stated objectives or its symbolic alignment with child rights discourse. The more decisive issue concerns the institutional architecture within which diversion operates. Diversion must therefore be analysed in relation to the governance structure that organises decision-making authority within the justice system. One key distinction concerns the point at which diversion intervenes in the criminal process. Diversion may function at the threshold of criminalisation by preventing formal entry into the justice system, or it may operate only after prosecutorial processes have already been initiated (Goldson and Muncie, 2015). A further question concerns the distribution of authority across institutional actors. Diversion may redistribute decision-making authority or remain dependent upon centralised gatekeeping structures that retain control over access and termination (Lacey, 2008). The durability of diversionary status must also be considered, since diversion may produce either a stable exit from penal processing or a conditional pathway that remains institutionally managed (Bateman, 2020; Haines and Case, 2015). Penal governance scholarship directs attention to these structural dimensions, showing that where prosecutors or judges retain concentrated authority over eligibility and termination, new measures may operate through established institutional hierarchies. In such contexts, moderation depends upon discretionary restraint rather than institutional insulation (Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008; Simon, 2007).

The assumption that diversion equals decarceration also obscures the temporal dimension of criminalisation. Labelling theory highlights the significance of formal designation in shaping identity and future trajectories. Becker (1963) argues that deviance is produced through institutional reactions that attach meaning to conduct. Subsequent scholarship has demonstrated that official intervention can intensify rather than interrupt offending pathways by reinforcing deviant identities and expanding surveillance (Lemert, 1967; McAra and McVie, 2007). Empirical research in youth justice further shows that early system contact may consolidate offending trajectories by reinforcing deviant identities and embedding young people within institutional monitoring structures (Bernburg et al., 2006; McAra and McVie, 2007; McAra and McVie, 2010). The timing of diversion therefore becomes analytically significant. Diversion that operates prior to formal case initiation may interrupt the labelling process by preventing official categorisation. Diversion that operates only after initiation cannot reverse that initial designation. It may mitigate subsequent consequences, yet the institutional transition into the status of accused person has already occurred. Sequencing thus becomes central to understanding diversion. If diversion is applied only after formal initiation, investigative authority has already been activated, and the young person has entered a chain of institutional review. Diversion then reshapes the trajectory of the case rather than preventing its incorporation into prosecutorial governance. The distinction determines whether diversion functions as an alternative to prosecution or as an internal adjustment within prosecution (Goldson and Muncie, 2015; Muncie, 2015).

Attention must also be given to the durability and conditionality of diversionary status. A diversionary pathway may remain subject to compliance review, supervision, and graduated escalation. The young person’s avoidance of adjudication becomes conditional upon conformity with institutional expectations. In such arrangements, diversion does not remove penal power but reorganises it through monitoring, behavioural obligations, and institutional responses to non-compliance. Comparative research on youth justice has shown that diversionary frameworks frequently operate through conditional compliance and supervisory monitoring rather than through unconditional exit from the justice system (Bateman, 2020; Haines and Case, 2015).

These theoretical strands converge on a structural approach to diversion. The analytical focus shifts from aggregate custody rates to procedural sequencing, from abstract commitments to child rights to the distribution of discretion, and from formal alternatives to the durability of diversionary status. Diversion may coexist with centralised authority and preserved capacities for escalation (Bateman, 2020; Haines and Case, 2015). It may moderate intervention without displacing prosecutorial primacy. Contemporary analyses of penal governance emphasise that reforms frequently recalibrate modalities of intervention while maintaining the underlying distribution of institutional authority (Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008). This structural approach provides the basis for examining the reform trajectory and institutional design of diversion under the JJL 2024.

Reform trajectory and legislative positioning

The JJL 2024 did not emerge in an institutional vacuum. Prior to the enactment of the JJL 2024, youth offending in Vietnam was largely processed within the ordinary criminal justice framework rather than through a structurally autonomous juvenile justice system, despite the presence of age-specific provisions in the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (Ministry of Justice and UNICEF, 2019). The Penal Code 2015 and the Penal Procedure Code 2015 contained provisions tailored to persons under 18, including reduced sentencing ranges, mitigation principles, and certain procedural safeguards (Penal Code 2015, arts 90–107; Penal Procedure Code 2015, arts 413–430). Institutional reports and policy assessments produced during the drafting of the JJL 2024 provide additional insight into how this embedded framework operated in practice. Review reports prepared by the Supreme People’s Court indicated that juvenile cases continued to be processed predominantly within the ordinary criminal procedure system, with imprisonment and placement in reform schools remaining among the principal institutional responses to youth offending (Ministry of Justice and UNICEF, 2019; SPCV, 2024c).

These assessments also noted persistent concerns regarding the limited availability of diversionary or community-based measures prior to adjudication and the consequent reliance on sentencing-stage interventions within the existing penal framework. Policy discussions surrounding the drafting of the JJL 2024 therefore frequently framed diversion not only as a normative commitment aligned with international child rights standards but also as an institutional mechanism intended to expand non-custodial responses earlier in the processing of youth cases (SPCV, 2024b, 2024c; Standing Committee of the National Assembly (SCNA), 2024). However, these age-specific adaptations operated within the same investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial hierarchy that governed adult offending. Youth cases were not removed from the mainstream criminal process but were channelled through it with modified rules (Hoang and Trinh, 2024; Dao and Dandurand, 2023). The institutional logic of prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing therefore remained intact. Age sensitivity was accommodated within the structure of general criminal law rather than through a parallel institutional track.

This embedded configuration shaped both the possibilities and the limits of reform. Placement in reform schools, for example, was ordered by the court as a judicial measure applicable in lieu of punishment within the broader criminal justice framework, rather than as a structurally independent diversionary response (Penal Code 2015, art 96). Educational measures were available, yet they were imposed as consequences within adjudicated cases rather than as structurally independent alternatives situated outside prosecution (Dao et al., 2022; Hoang and Trinh, 2024). Youth justice therefore operated through differentiated rules inside an integrated prosecutorial and judicial architecture. In institutional terms, youth offending remained embedded within the architecture of penal governance rather than separated from it, reflecting a model in which age-specific safeguards were incorporated into the general criminal justice system rather than administered through an autonomous youth justice structure.

International legal commitments also formed part of the reform environment. Vietnam’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the influence of juvenile justice standards supported policy narratives emphasising diversion, reintegration, and reduced reliance on custodial sentencing (Dao et al., 2022; Le and Dandurand, 2022; SCNA, 2024; SPCV, 2024a; UN General Assembly, 1989; United Nations, 1985). Vietnamese legal scholarship provides additional context for this legislative shift. Recent domestic analyses of diversion under the Law have examined whether diversion should be understood as a substitute for criminal liability, a procedural mechanism for avoiding trial, or a specialised form of criminal justice intervention for minors (Le, 2024; Nguyen, 2025). Other contributions address the authority and procedure for imposing diversionary measures, community-based implementation, the legal character of institutional education, and the consequences of breach (Ha et al., 2025; Ha and Le, 2025; Le and Le, 2025; Mai, 2025). This scholarship is especially useful because it shows that diversion has been welcomed as a child-sensitive and rehabilitative mechanism, while its relationship with criminal responsibility, prosecutorial authority, compliance supervision, institutional placement, and internal escalation remains debated in Vietnam.

The enactment of the JJL 2024 marked a formal shift in legislative positioning. For the first time, youth justice was consolidated within a standalone statute dedicated exclusively to persons under 18. This legislative differentiation signalled an intention to systematise youth-specific procedures and to foreground diversion as a central organising mechanism (JJL 2024, arts 1, 3, 11–12; SPCV, 2024b, 2024c). The statute articulates rehabilitative objectives and establishes a structured framework of diversionary measures (JJL 2024, Part Two). In symbolic and doctrinal terms, the move from dispersed provisions within the Penal Code to a dedicated youth justice law represents a significant development. It reclassifies youth justice as a distinct domain of regulation and signals an effort to align domestic legal structures more closely with international approaches that emphasise diversion, rehabilitation, and minimal intervention in youth justice systems (Goldson and Muncie, 2015).

Yet legislative differentiation does not equate to institutional autonomy. The JJL 2024 does not create a separate juvenile court system or an independent prosecutorial body. Investigative authorities, prosecutors, and courts remain the core actors in youth case processing (JJL 2024). The statute inserts specialised rules and diversionary mechanisms into an established structure rather than constructing a parallel institutional apparatus. Youth justice is therefore differentiated in normative framing and procedure, yet continuous in authority allocation. This dual character of differentiation and continuity defines the legislative positioning of the JJL 2024. On the one hand, the statute signals reform by consolidating youth-specific provisions and elevating diversion within a dedicated legal framework. On the other hand, it preserves the embeddedness of youth justice within prosecutorial governance. Diversion is introduced within an institutional architecture already shaped by centralised authority and offence-based stratification. The reform modifies how youth cases move through the system without relocating them outside it. This trajectory is essential for interpreting the institutional design analysed next. The embedding of diversion within prosecution reflects the structural conditions under which youth justice reform was enacted, rather than a complete institutional reconfiguration of the justice system (Garland, 2001; Muncie, 2015).

Embedding diversion within prosecution

The JJL 2024 introduces diversion as a formalised procedural mechanism within Vietnam’s youth justice framework. The statute foregrounds rehabilitation, education, and the best interests of the child as guiding principles and positions diversion as an alternative pathway within youth case processing (JJL 2024, arts 5, 11). At the level of statutory presentation, this orientation resonates with minimal intervention paradigms and reform vocabularies commonly associated with contemporary youth justice reform (Haines and Case, 2015; Muncie, 2015). Yet criminological scholarship has long cautioned that the introduction of alternatives should not automatically be equated with a contraction of institutional control (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001). When examined in institutional terms, the architecture of diversion under the JJL 2024 is notable less for the existence of diversion itself than for the way diversion is positioned within prosecutorial processes and conditioned by hierarchical decision-making structures.

A central feature of the JJL 2024 is the sequencing of diversion after formal case initiation. Diversion becomes available only once a criminal case has been initiated and the young person has entered the procedural status of an accused (JJL 2024, arts 3(9), 55). Case initiation activates investigative authority and places the matter within prosecutorial supervision under the criminal procedure framework (Penal Procedure Code 2015, arts 143, 153–158). Diversion therefore does not operate at the threshold of criminalisation but within the prosecutorial structure that governs case progression. The decision to apply diversion is taken during investigation or prosecution and remains subject to institutional assessment and approval within the existing procedural hierarchy (JJL 2024, arts 52–56, 71). In practical terms, this model differs from pre-charge diversion or informal police resolution models commonly discussed in comparative youth justice scholarship, where diversion is applied before formal entry into the criminal process (Goldson and Muncie, 2015; Muncie, 2015). This sequencing is the first institutional condition of restorative mimicry. Diversion is presented as an alternative to punitive adjudication, but it becomes available only after the child has already entered the formal criminal process (JJL 2024, arts 3(9), 55; Becker, 1963; McAra and McVie, 2007). The reform therefore changes the subsequent pathway of intervention without preventing the initial prosecutorial designation that gives the state authority over the case.

Labelling theory explains why this sequencing matters. The harms of criminal justice intervention are closely tied to formal designation and system contact (Becker, 1963; McAra and McVie, 2007; McAra and McVie, 2010). Diversion before formal case initiation may interrupt labelling by preventing official categorisation, but diversion after initiation operates only once that categorisation has occurred. It therefore moderates the downstream consequences of prosecution rather than preventing entry into the criminal process. This aligns with broader concerns that alternatives may reorganise penal intervention rather than displace it when they operate as internal adjustments within existing authority structures (Bateman, 2020; Cohen, 1985).

Embedding is further reinforced by the centralisation of discretionary authority. The JJL 2024 assigns competent procedural authorities, particularly prosecutors, responsibility for assessing eligibility and determining whether diversion is appropriate (JJL 2024, arts 52, 55, 56). Legislative materials accompanying the draft law also make clear that diversion was designed to be considered and decided by procedural authorities across different stages of the criminal process rather than by an independent community-based body (SPCV, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c). Diversion is not automatically triggered by statutory criteria alone. It is mediated through hierarchical institutional evaluation within the prosecutorial structure. As Lacey (2008) argues, the distribution of discretion within legal systems is decisive in determining whether reforms constrain or merely reconfigure state power. In the Vietnamese model, diversion does not relocate authority to independent youth panels or community bodies. It remains embedded within prosecutorial governance. Access to diversion depends on institutional approval and remains contingent on evaluative judgement exercised within the same hierarchy that supervises investigation and prosecution. Prosecutorial gatekeeping is therefore not incidental to the reform but constitutive of its operation. The restorative orientation of the JJL 2024 becomes operational through the same procedural hierarchy that controls investigation and prosecution (Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008; JJL 2024, arts 52, 55).

Offence-based stratification further consolidates this embedded structure. Articles 37 and 38 structure diversion eligibility through offence severity and age-specific criteria, reproducing offence-based stratification within the diversion framework (JJL 2024, arts 37–38). Eligibility may also depend on the minor’s role in the offence, with diversion remaining available where the young person participated as an accomplice with a minor role (JJL 2024, art 37(3)). Access to diversion is filtered through offence classification, allowing the seriousness hierarchy of criminal law to persist within the alternative pathway. Offence-based exclusions therefore show how restorative mimicry operates through inherited penal classifications. Diversion’s stated orientation suggests individualised and welfare-oriented decision-making, yet eligibility remains structured by rules that predefine which children may be considered suitable for diversion.

The conditional character of diversion completes this architecture. The JJL 2024 subjects diversionary measures to monitoring, compliance obligations, and institutional review (JJL 2024, arts 73–77, 79, 82). Non-compliance does not necessarily return the case automatically to ordinary criminal adjudication. Return to ordinary criminal processing is separately linked to circumstances such as an unlawful or unfounded diversion decision or the acceptance of a complaint or recommendation challenging that decision (JJL 2024, arts 56(4)(a), 72(1)(a)). For ordinary breaches of diversionary obligations, the statute instead creates a graduated regime in which repeated or serious non-compliance may lead to intensified intervention within the diversionary framework, including movement towards education in reform schools (JJL 2024, art 82(3)). Diversion therefore operates less as an unconditional exit from penal governance than as a conditional pathway managed through compliance, supervision, and internal escalation. Contemporary analyses of penal governance emphasise that modern systems often rely on behavioural compliance to sustain moderated forms of intervention while preserving institutional authority (Garland, 2001). Youth justice frameworks likewise often combine welfare rationales with managerial monitoring and supervision (Haines and Case, 2015). This gives restorative mimicry its penal depth. The reform presents diversion as educational and child-sensitive, while its operational design preserves institutional authority through monitoring, compliance review, and graduated control (Bateman, 2020; Haines and Case, 2015).

These features demonstrate that diversion under the JJL 2024 remains institutionally embedded within prosecution. Sequencing, centralised discretion, offence-based eligibility, compliance monitoring, and internal escalation confirm rather than displace prosecutorial primacy. Diversion may moderate intervention in individual cases, but it functions as an adaptive recalibration within the penal process rather than a relocation of authority over access, continuity, and termination (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008).

Reclassifying control: Substantive modality and hybrid penal form

If Section IV established the procedural dimension of restorative mimicry by showing how diversion is embedded within prosecutorial governance, this section turns to its substantive dimension by examining the measures authorised once diversion has been activated. The analytical focus shifts from the location of authority to the modality of intervention. Diversion does not merely redirect the procedural trajectory of a case. It reshapes the form, intensity, and justification of state involvement in youth offending. The content of diversionary measures, therefore, determines whether reform represents withdrawal of control or its reclassification within alternative institutional forms, a dynamic widely noted in criminological analyses of penal reform (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001). This reclassification of control constitutes the substantive dimension of restorative mimicry. The reform determines not only whether a young person is punished or diverted but also what kinds of control may be redescribed as diversion. Where institutional education, structured supervision, and behavioural obligations are incorporated into the category of diversion, the restorative orientation of reform expands without necessarily narrowing the repertoire of state intervention (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001; Haines and Case, 2015; JJL 2024, arts 36, 40–51).

Under the JJL 2024, diversionary responses may include reprimand, apology to the victim, compensation, community-based education, home supervision, movement or contact restrictions, compulsory treatment, education in reform schools, and participation in designated educational or vocational activities (JJL 2024, arts 36, 40–51). Legislative materials and implementation reports indicate that diversionary measures may include institutional educational placement and structured supervision programmes (SPCV, 2024b, 2024c). These measures are framed in rehabilitative and developmental terms consistent with international child justice standards and reform discourse (Haines and Case, 2015; Muncie, 2015). Yet they may still involve intrusive forms of supervision or control. Education in reform schools requires the child to study, receive vocational training, work, live under management, and receive education in a tightly disciplined educational institution, with further rules governing student management, learning, labour, recreational activities, and residence (JJL 2024, arts 51(1), 98, 100–101, 104). Community-based education and home supervision involve local monitoring, compliance obligations, and designated supervisory actors (JJL 2024, arts 43–44, 73–77). Restitution, apology, and behavioural obligations impose formal expectations linked to procedural consequences (JJL 2024, arts 40–42, 77). Diversion therefore alters the legal framing of intervention without eliminating structured restriction, a pattern frequently observed in youth justice systems where diversion combines welfare rationales with forms of managerial supervision (Haines and Case, 2015).

Institutional placement under diversion illustrates how diversion may reorganise rather than reduce forms of control. Education in reform schools as a diversionary measure is distinguished from conventional custodial detention in purpose and legal framing. It is justified as a developmental response rather than a punitive sanction (JJL 2024, arts 3, 51). Residence within such institutions nonetheless entails significant constraints on personal autonomy (Goffman, 2007). Daily routines may be structured by institutional authority, movement regulated, and participation in programmes made mandatory, while the young person’s conduct may be monitored and evaluated within an organised setting. Comparative scholarship on youth justice has repeatedly noted that educational or rehabilitative placements may retain significant elements of institutional control even when they are framed as welfare-oriented alternatives to custody (Haines and Case, 2015; Muncie, 2015). The distinction between educational placement and incarceration therefore lies primarily in legal framing, duration, and stated objective, rather than in the absence of institutional control.

From a penal governance perspective, this reclassification is consistent with adaptive recalibration rather than rupture. Garland’s account of late modern penal systems emphasises their capacity to absorb reformist vocabulary while retaining underlying capacities of control (Garland, 2001). Educational discourse may therefore coexist with regulatory techniques within institutional settings. Comparative scholarship on youth justice similarly notes that welfare-oriented language often operates alongside disciplinary infrastructures within youth justice systems (Goldson and Muncie, 2015). The Vietnamese model reflects this pattern. Institutional educational placement may now form part of diversion rather than only a post-adjudicative judicial response. The extension of diversion to include institutional residence broadens the definitional scope of what counts as alternative intervention.

Structured supervision and monitoring further demonstrate how diversion reorganises control, reflecting a broader shift towards managerial forms of regulation and oversight long identified in criminological scholarship (Feeley and Simon, 1992; Garland, 2001). Supervision programmes may require regular reporting to designated authorities, participation in prescribed activities, and adherence to behavioural expectations (JJL 2024, arts 43–44, 73–77). The young person therefore remains visible within an administrative framework during the diversionary period. This visibility does not replicate confinement yet establishes an evaluative relationship that links conduct to procedural status. The case is not withdrawn from institutional attention but managed through supervisory oversight rather than adjudication. Criminological studies of youth justice diversion have frequently noted that supervision-based measures retain significant elements of institutional monitoring even when they are framed as alternatives to formal punishment (Haines and Case, 2015; Muncie, 2015).

Restitution obligations and behavioural commitments reinforce this regulatory dimension. Restitution connects diversion to notions of accountability and repair, while behavioural requirements may include movement or contact restrictions, compulsory treatment, and participation in educational or vocational activities (JJL 2024, arts 40–42, 45–50). These measures are articulated as opportunities for improvement, yet they also formalise expectations backed by compliance review and possible escalation within the diversionary framework (JJL 2024, arts 40–42, 45–50, 77, 82). Diversionary status depends on conformity with imposed conditions. Compliance sustains the diversionary pathway, while non-compliance may trigger further review, intensified supervision, or movement towards more restrictive diversionary measures (JJL 2024, arts 77, 82). The linkage between behaviour and procedural outcome embeds responsibilisation within the operational structure of diversion, a dynamic widely noted in analyses of contemporary penal governance and youth justice reform (Garland, 2001; Goldson and Muncie, 2015). This conditional architecture confirms that diversion operates as moderated control rather than withdrawal from penal governance. The suspension of formal adjudication does not terminate institutional authority. It relocates control into a supervised diversionary pathway where non-compliance may trigger review, intensified supervision, or internal escalation within the diversionary framework (JJL 2024, arts 77, 82).

The hybrid character of this arrangement lies in the integration of supportive framing with structured oversight. Diversion creates space for educational engagement and avoidance of formal conviction, which may reduce exposure to imprisonment and the stigma associated with criminal trial. At the same time, it expands the repertoire of supervisory and institutional measures available within youth justice systems. Cohen’s (1985) analysis of net widening demonstrates that alternatives to custody may reorganise rather than contract forms of intervention. When institutional measures are incorporated within diversion, the category of diversion becomes sufficiently expansive to accommodate varying degrees of restriction. The analytical question therefore shifts from whether diversion reduces punishment in the abstract to how it reorganises modalities of governance within the justice system (Garland, 2001).

The analysis of substantive modality therefore complements the institutional analysis developed earlier. Authority remains embedded within prosecutorial governance but the technique through which that authority is exercised changes. Diversion expands educational and supervisory measures while preserving conditionality and monitoring within the diversionary period. In this sense, the framework reflects a hybrid penal form in which developmental framing intersects with regulatory practice. Such arrangements illustrate the capacity of penal systems to recalibrate intervention while maintaining continuity in the distribution of authority (Garland, 2001). This configuration sets up the broader comparative question of how diversion may moderate visible punishment while sustaining structural continuity in authority allocation.

Diversion without structural decarceration: Comparative and analytical implications

The preceding sections have shown that diversion under the JJL 2024 is institutionally embedded within prosecutorial governance and substantively configured through structured intervention rather than simple withdrawal. This section considers how diversion should be interpreted when moderation of punishment occurs without redistribution of authority.

Diversion is widely treated in reform discourse as a proxy for decarceration. In many jurisdictions, the expansion of diversionary mechanisms has coincided with declining youth custody rates and has been presented as evidence of movement away from punitive paradigms towards child-centred justice (Muncie, 2015; Tonry, 2016). This association is also reflected in international policy advocacy promoting diversion as an alternative to detention for children in conflict with the law (UNICEF, 2017). International instruments encourage states to reduce reliance on formal judicial proceedings and to prioritise reintegration, reinforcing the association between diversion and systemic transformation. Yet comparative scholarship consistently shows that reform vocabularies travel through domestic governance structures that shape their practical meaning (Goldson and Muncie, 2015). The Vietnamese case illustrates that diversion may contribute to moderation in sentencing outcomes while leaving intact the institutional architecture through which penal authority is exercised.

The first implication concerns an analytical distinction introduced here between statistical and structural decarceration. Statistical decarceration refers to measurable reductions in imprisonment rates, whereas structural decarceration refers to institutional arrangements that constrain the authority to impose custodial sanctions. This distinction reflects long-standing criminological concerns that alternatives to imprisonment may reorganise rather than reduce penal control (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001; Tonry, 2016). Diversion under the JJL 2024 may generate the former in individual cases. It creates a formal route through which adjudication may be avoided and custody reduced. However, because diversion operates after case initiation and remains embedded within prosecutorial decision-making, it does not automatically entail the latter. Internal escalation remains available. Moderation therefore occurs within preserved authority allocation rather than through structural displacement.

This distinction clarifies why the Vietnamese configuration cannot be interpreted solely through aggregate custody metrics. A decline in imprisonment would indicate reduced severity in outcome, but it would not in itself demonstrate redistribution of power. Structural transformation requires either institutional insulation from prosecutorial escalation or relocation of decision-making outside the prosecutorial hierarchy. The JJL 2024 does not establish such insulation. Diversion expands available responses within prosecution rather than creating an autonomous youth justice forum detached from it. Reform therefore recalibrates penal intervention while preserving its institutional centre.

A second implication concerns hybrid penal form at the level of authority configuration. This configuration resonates with wider criminological accounts of penal systems that increasingly govern through classification, monitoring, and administrative management rather than direct punitive escalation (Feeley and Simon, 1992). Comparative youth justice research has documented the coexistence of welfare rationales and managerial practices within contemporary systems (Goldson and Muncie, 2015). The Vietnamese case contributes to this literature by showing that hybridity may operate not only in substantive measures but also in governance structure. Educational, rehabilitative, and child-sensitive framing is integrated into a statutory framework that retains prosecutorial primacy. The hybrid character lies in the alignment of rehabilitative framing with preserved prosecutorial primacy. Diversion becomes the organising principle of youth justice without displacing the actors who control prosecution. The analytical significance lies not in contradiction but in integration.

A third implication concerns discretion and the absence of structural insulation. Where diversion remains dependent on prosecutorial assessment, compliance monitoring, and internal escalation, its moderating capacity depends largely on how discretion is exercised within the statutory framework. Comparative experience suggests that similar diversionary provisions can yield divergent results depending on professional culture, policy guidance, and institutional priorities. In England and Wales, expansion of out-of-court disposals coincided with substantial reductions in youth custody during the 2010s (Bateman, 2020). Yet scholars also document continuing managerial oversight and risk-oriented supervision within that reduced custody environment (Haines and Case, 2015). Reduced imprisonment did not eliminate institutional control. It reconfigured it. The Vietnamese framework presents a similar structural possibility. The statute authorises moderation but does not structurally insulate cases from continuing prosecutorial oversight and graduated intervention. The durability of decarceration therefore depends on practice rather than entrenched redistribution of authority.

A fourth implication concerns reform as adaptive governance. Penal systems rarely transform through abrupt rupture; more commonly adjusting techniques and vocabularies while maintaining organisational continuity (Garland, 2001; Loader and Sparks, 2011). The JJL 2024 reflects such adaptation. It codifies diversion within a standalone youth justice statute and aligns its language with international child rights discourse. At the same time, it preserves offence stratification, centralised gatekeeping, compliance monitoring, and graduated escalation. Diversion thus functions as a technique of adaptation that modifies the trajectory of cases without dismantling the architecture that governs them. This configuration is what the article conceptualises as restorative mimicry. The term is used descriptively rather than as a claim about legislative bad faith. It designates a reform pattern in which restorative, educational, and child-sensitive vocabularies are formally adopted while the operational conditions of reform remain structured by prosecutorial sequencing, offence-based eligibility, conditional supervision, compliance review, and graduated escalation. Its analytical value lies in showing how a reform can be normatively progressive and institutionally conservative at the same time. The Vietnamese case is therefore not simply an example of incomplete implementation. It illustrates how a restorative orientation may be made operational through inherited penal institutions (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008; JJL 2024, arts 36–38, 52–56, 72, 79, 82).

These implications suggest caution in equating the presence of diversion with systemic transformation. Comparative evaluation must attend not only to sentencing outcomes but also to sequencing, discretion, and the preserved possibility of escalating intervention. Where prosecutorial primacy remains intact, moderation remains contingent upon how authority is exercised in practice. Whether the JJL 2024 evolves towards more durable constraints on custodial power will depend on implementation, judicial interpretation, and institutional practice over time. The Vietnamese case thus contributes to comparative youth justice scholarship by illustrating how diversion may function as an adaptive technique within penal governance, moderating visible punishment while maintaining continuity in the institutional allocation of authority.

Conclusion

The JJL 2024 represents a decisive moment in Vietnam’s youth justice reform by formally elevating diversion as the organising principle of the new statutory framework. The analysis has shown, however, that the significance of this reform lies not simply in the introduction of diversion but in its institutional configuration. Diversion under the JJL 2024 is sequenced after formal case initiation, channelled through prosecutorial gatekeeping, bounded by offence-based eligibility criteria, and sustained through conditional compliance, supervisory monitoring, and possible internal escalation. These features indicate that diversion operates within prosecutorial governance rather than outside it. The reform recalibrates penal intervention by expanding alternative pathways and moderating visible punishment, yet it does not redistribute the locus of authority governing access, continuation, and escalation.

The theoretical contribution of this article lies in shifting the evaluative lens from outcome-oriented measures of custody reduction to institutional design. Rather than assuming that diversion signals structural decarceration, the analysis foregrounds procedural sequencing, discretion allocation, stratification mechanisms, compliance review, and internal escalation. This approach demonstrates that reform can stabilise in hybrid form. Diversion may coexist with centralised discretion and preserved supervisory authority. The concept of restorative mimicry captures this patterned coexistence of reform-oriented framing and prosecutorial continuity. It is derived from the combined analysis of procedural sequencing, discretionary gatekeeping, offence-based eligibility, substantive modalities of diversion, conditional supervision, and graduated escalation. The term is employed descriptively to illuminate how educational, reparative, and child-sensitive framing can be integrated into an authority structure that remains intact. By emphasising institutional embedding and substantive modality, the article contributes to comparative criminological scholarship that moves beyond binary distinctions between punitive and welfare models.

The comparative significance of the Vietnamese case extends beyond its domestic context. Youth justice reform has travelled globally through the diffusion of diversionary language and child rights commitments. Yet comparative research has consistently shown that legal borrowing does not produce uniform institutional outcomes. The JJL 2024 illustrates how diversion can be adopted as a central organising principle while remaining embedded within an established prosecutorial hierarchy. The case therefore underscores the importance of examining how diversion is authorised, sequenced, supervised, and escalated within specific governance architectures. It cautions against equating statutory convergence with structural convergence. Systems may align with international standards in normative framing while maintaining distinct patterns of authority allocation. The Vietnamese configuration enriches comparative debates by showing how moderation of punishment can coexist with continuity in institutional power.

Finally, the empirical trajectory of the JJL 2024 remains open. The structural analysis presented here does not predetermine implementation outcomes. Diversion may reduce custodial sentencing, stigma, and exposure to formal adjudication, but it may also expand structured supervision and institutional engagement. Future research should examine custody rates, the distribution of diversion across offence categories, the prevalence of education in reform schools, and the frequency and circumstances of internal escalation. Qualitative and longitudinal inquiry will be essential to assessing whether moderation achieved through diversion consolidates into durable constraints on custodial power or remains contingent on discretionary practice. The long-term significance of the JJL 2024 will depend not only on the presence of diversion in statutory text but also on how its institutional design interacts with practice over time.