I question if the courts could get away with a term like that. I'm not a legal kiwi, but it would seem a bit backwards if they can get away with a no internet clause for probations but not for actual sentences. But Chris is one of the first people to be deferred by the new law, so the courts are still probably figuring out what they can and can't do with the probation clauses.
It's not probation (though in practice a probation office may be engaged for check-ins or on-site visits). Diversions are contracts, so the terms are negotiated, with counsel. It is a willing agreement, not an imposed punishment. Diversion programs have been in place at state, local, and Federal levels for decades. No idea if there have been challenges (Constitutional or otherwise), but again, terms of the programs are not punishments, but contract terms - and there is always an alternative (prosecution/trial). It's a way to admit guilt (or effectively admit it; many programs require an admission, but not clear if 100%) but allow for the possibility that someone will shape up without a criminal conviction. Thus, the many juvenile and first-time offender adult diversion programs out there. There are also many drug diversion programs, as well as mental health diversion programs (
CA has one; schizos welcome; BPDs are SOL). VA is not the only state that considers autism as a special case for diversion consideration (see, e.g.,
Indiana). General principles of these programs tend to be to lean to a "least restrictive" standard and, where feasible, to tailor terms somewhat to the offense/offender. As someone else said, the parties could have agreed that restricting Chris's access was the best all around - particularly when you consider that email Heilberg sent to someone from here (iirc) basically outlining an "internet bullying as precursor/causal factor in Chris's behavior" (thanks, Janke), whether strictly accurate or not. Alternatively, it may be simply that he's agreed to do without while at [wherever he is] as part of an overall therapeutic approach. Maybe he actually likes it. It looks like he's gone out and been social irl (gamestop to play games with humans; the trip to the outlets with [we surmise] others from [wherever he is]), and is playing vidya games, so maybe that's enough.
I think if he got kicked out of whatever program he's in, that's probably a violation of the diversion and they go back to court and prosecute him
I can't see how it wouldn't be. Though I guess it could be a separate deal, more along the lines of state-sanctioned care that was part of a packaged resolution but not strictly a term of the diversion...and he really has nowhere else to go, so to the extent he is understanding some realities
, he has every motivation to be a good citizen there because it's all at least somewhat entwined, however it's structured.
