“This is not crime prevention; it is a decision oriented toward punishing children,” says psychologist Nino Tkeshelashvili, assessing the draft law concerning juveniles “in conflict with the law.”
For years, Tkeshelashvili worked at Penitentiary Institution No. 11, known as a “juvenile rehabilitation” facility. A similar name is envisaged for the structure to be created under the draft law announced by Georgian Dream the House for Juvenile Rehabilitation and Support. According to the document, children aged 10-14 who are deemed “in conflict with the law” will be redirected to this “house.”
Tkeshelashvili, who has many years of experience in public service working on resocialization–rehabilitation and juvenile diversion–mediation, says it is categorically unacceptable to place children in any type of closed institution. In her assessment, this approach will not yield positive results; on the contrary, it creates even greater risks for these children’s futures.
Netgazeti spoke with Tkeshelashvili about the initiative, which its authors present as a step toward “helping, protecting, and developing social skills in minors,” while human rights defenders view it as an action contrary to the best interests of the child.
The explanatory note to the draft law cites the lack of an effective mechanism to respond to alleged offenses committed by children under 14 as the reason for drafting the bill. First of all, is this assessment correct, and is there a need to create a new structure to prevent alleged juvenile crime?
When something like this is done, it must be based on research and analysis. For example, there is a Juvenile Referral Center that serves children aged 7 to 14. One of its purposes is to work with children who have difficult behavior. Has there been any assessment showing that this center does not work, and therefore we decided to create a closed institution? Of course, no such assessment has been conducted.
They also say that the child’s best interests will be ensured by a multidisciplinary team. But nowhere in the draft law are a social worker or a psychologist mentioned. They are not mentioned because “multidisciplinary team conclusions” could mean notes prepared by anyone of any specialty including, potentially, someone hired through nepotism who may assess a child in a biased way. We do not know what needs will be identified or what rehabilitation program will be prescribed. We do not know whether any of this will work.
Normally, such processes are research-based. When we established the diversion–mediation program and worked on resocialization and rehabilitation both for juveniles and adults each step was preceded by research, followed by pilot projects with target groups, and only then was a new direction introduced.
Today, we are told that something has been decided abruptly something that poses a threat to future generations. For example, a 10-year-old steals candy. Instead of working with the family what is happening at home? and the education system what is happening at school? they take the child, bring them to a center, and then to a closed institution. Why? Because proper approaches and real work require great effort.
Before we move on to what the right approach should be, why is it a problem for a minor to undergo rehabilitation even in a closed-type institution? According to the draft law, a judge will decide to place a child in this “house” only after the minor has exhausted the services and programs of a rehabilitation and support center, which is also to be created under the Ministry of Justice.
Placing a child of this age in a closed institution is already a problem. In the recent past, Georgia had a similar closed institution for children with difficult behavior the so-called Samtredia School. It was closed precisely because children were not in an environment where full resocialization and rehabilitation could take place. Even then, those children were not labeled as being “in conflict with the law.” Now, with this draft law, this term is introduced. We are treating 12–13-year-old children as prisoners.
Yes, the draft law states that a child should not spend more than 12 months in the center, but it also allows for the possibility that, by decision of a multidisciplinary team, the child could remain in the same institution. Or, if after leaving this house the child commits another offense, they may be placed in a penitentiary institution.
Could you explain in more detail what risks you see in this draft law? Why would the approach proposed by the initiators be harmful to children?
As you know, the justice system is liberal toward juveniles because they do not have sufficiently developed physical and psychological capacities to make fully consequence-oriented decisions even those aged 14 to 18. Under our justice code, young people up to the age of 21 are still in the process of formation, and justice should therefore be liberal.
On the one hand, we say this; on the other, we place much younger children in closed institutions, which conditions them to the role of being “in conflict with the law.” This is stigmatization. They will internalize this role, and it is difficult for even adults to escape such labeling let alone children.
This is the exact age when identity formation occurs. During adolescence, when a child is searching for themselves, learning about the world, and thinking about how to establish themselves in society, they are placed in a closed institution. No alternative model is offered. This is extremely dangerous.
Unfortunately, we are returning to a time when penitentiary institutions held 200–300 children. Through the new justice code, prevention, and liberal approaches, we reduced that number to 20–25. Now, decisions are being made to place even younger children in closed institutions. This is not prevention; it is punishment. It is wrapped in very nice terminology, but it is a punishment-oriented decision. Even in the Soviet Union, 10-, 11-, 12-, and 13-year-old children were not detained and transferred to closed institutions.
Why do you think Georgian Dream initiated this draft law? Is this a matter of incompetence, or might there be another objective behind it?
It is hard for me to imagine what the authors of this draft law are thinking, but I can say that this is yet another ill-considered law that is based neither on research nor analysis nor on results-oriented thinking. It is about scoring points at the expense of future generations.
You say this is punishment, not prevention. So what is prevention? How should we avoid alleged offenses committed by children of this age?
What causes juvenile offending? It can be biological factors a child may be hyperactive, aggressive, or prone to violent behavior. It can come from the family perhaps there is domestic violence, or constant conflict, and the parent becomes a role model. There may be upbringing issues, or macro-factors, such as violence portrayed in the media. When violence goes unpunished, a sense of impunity emerges. All of this affects children.
This does not suddenly appear in adolescence; it starts at an early age. If the family cannot address it, the education system must. Schools should be the first to notice hyperactivity, impulsive behavior, or aggression. That is how it works in developed countries.
When a school identifies a problem, it informs the parent. If the parent does not respond, the school contacts the social care agency under our system, the Ministry of Health. The healthcare system becomes involved to support the parent, provide counseling, ensure the child sees a psychologist; if there are behavioral or personality disorders requiring medication, that can be prescribed. A social worker must be involved to monitor progress so the child’s behavior is managed long before adolescence. This requires coordinated, multidisciplinary work by multiple state institutions.
If all of this is in place, locking children in centers or placing them in some “house” will not be necessary. The child will receive proper care at every age and level. If a child needs help, they should not seek attention through theft or violence; they should be able to ask for help. That is what these structures should ensure.
Another scenario is when a child spends a lot of time on the street and their free time is not properly supervised. In such cases, children can become victims of adults. Do you think a group of adolescents breaking into a mobile phone shop planned and carried it out on their own? Of course not. There is always an adult instigator who benefits. Those adults should be identified. Instead, what happens? We do not identify the adults we catch and punish the children. That is the problem.
You have repeatedly emphasized that punitive approaches toward children with such behavior are wrong. Could you explain more clearly why punishment is unacceptable and what negative consequences it brings?
If a young child let’s call him Giorgi steals items from other children at school and is harshly punished, as often happens humiliated, scolded, parents summoned, and then punished at home Giorgi will not gain the capacity to understand that what he did was wrong. On the contrary, a defense mechanism is triggered, and the situation can worsen. He might start stealing from shops or seeking revenge.
At this age, theft or hitting someone can be learned behavior imitating what the child sees, for example, at home. Schools and the education system must address this. A social worker should assess the situation, and monitoring should follow to see whether the child’s condition improves. With proper attention, the child will stop stealing or being violent. So why place them in a closed institution?
Take a 12-year-old who steals from a shop. Psychologically, why does the child steal? They may be hungry, or seeking an emotional experience they cannot get elsewhere. The task is to identify how to help the child, prioritize their best interests, and work on that not to grab the child and place them in a closed institution.
Intervention and care must start early so that such behavior does not emerge in adolescence. When a child lacks opportunities for educational activities, sports, or broader experiences beyond school, the risk of deviant behavior increases.
Where do you see a solution? What should be done to avoid the negative consequences that could result from implementing this initiative?
First of all, what you and I are doing now speaking out. Professionals psychologists, social workers, mediators, lawyers, teachers, parents – everyone must say that this is wrong.
People must ask questions. Even if they do not have expert knowledge of juvenile justice, everyone can understand that placing a 10-year-old in a closed institution is not crime prevention.
These groups should ask why this is being done, what results it will bring, and how it will benefit the child. The best interests of the child mean that every decision made for them must benefit them. We must ask whether this truly serves their best interests. The most important thing is not to remain silent. Unity and public outcry create the possibility that this can be changed.
Background:
Nino Tkeshelashvili has 15 years of experience working in the public sector, including in managerial positions. From 2016 to 2025, she headed the Resocialization and Rehabilitation Department for Convicted Persons and Former Prisoners at the National Probation Agency. She was dismissed from her position on January 1, 2025. Like hundreds of other public servants dismissed during the same period, Tkeshelashvili links her dismissal to her civic stance specifically, her criticism of Georgian Dream’s decision to suspend Georgia’s EU accession process.