美国少年司法的新近发展

作为世界上第一个少年司法制度的诞生地———美国 ,它的少年司法体系的改革令人关注。本文回顾了美国少年司法政策的发展历史 ,并系统地检验了美国少年司法体制 ,总结了美国少年司法的历史 ,阐述了美国少年司法近年来的发展状况 ,这些发展推动了学者们对美国少年司法的深入研究 ,从而为处理青少年偏差行为指明了合理、有效的策略。本文还涉及到意识形态、政治策略和媒体对少年司法的公共政策的影响问题 ,最后探讨了将来美国少年司法领域中可能出现的争议。     

我国设立少年法院的必要性和可行性分析

从1984年在上海市长宁区建立第一个少年法庭开始我国少年司法制度逐步形成,迄今对少年司法的探索已有27年的历程,回顾这期间对少年司法制度的探索,无论是从广度上还是从深度上都取得了令人欣慰的成绩和进步,然而,与欧美等国少年司法制度的发展现状相比,我们还是有许多地方有待完善,其中最为关键的就是少年法院创设的问题,作为少年司法体系核心的少年法院在我国尚未独立建制,本文试从构建我国少年法院的必要性和可行性入手,探究建立适合我国本土化土壤的少年法院的紧迫性与不可避免性。     

美国少年司法严罚刑事政策的形成、实践与未来

建立独立的少年司法制度，在保护主义的理念下处理少年犯罪，曾经是美国的骄傲，也是其他国家效仿的范本。但自20世纪70年代后期开始，严罚刑事政策开始逐步占据美国少年司法刑事政策的主流，呈现出逐步背弃福利型少年司法传统的趋势。这种转变是在少年犯罪恶化与古典犯罪学派复兴的社会背景与理论背景下发生的，也是对少年司法理念的歪曲。少年司法严罚刑事政策的推行激化了少年法院存废的争论，也遭到了激烈的批评和日益深入的反思。     

少年法院试点对未检制度的影响——以上海市检察实践为例

少年司法改革有着特殊的意义,检察机关应该重视未成年人检察制度改革,及早提出应对之策,先行积累与少年法院建立相适应的未检实践经验。针对少年法院试点所提出的未检科(处)也应实行指定管辖或者建立专门性少年检察院的观点是值得商榷的。对于检察机关而言,改革的重心是实现未检业务的一体化,使未检科(处)形成与少年综合庭相对接的业务范围。国外少年司法改革的经验表明,少年法院建立后一般会被赋予对少年案件的先议权,检察机关具有被边缘化的特点,这是少年法院时代未检制度的潜存危机。     

略论少年司法制度的改革与完善

改革和完善少年司法制度是建设和谐社会和实施宽严相济的刑事政策的必然要求。我国应当制定综合性的少年法,完善少年司法的程序法规则,创新少年司法工作机制,逐步推行少年犯行刑社会化,建立少年刑事法院,组建少年司法队伍。     

略论少年司法制度的改革与完善

改革和完善少年司法制度是建设和谐社会和实施宽严相济的刑事政策的必然要求。我国应当制定综合性的少年法，完善少年司法的程序法规则，创新少年司法工作机制，逐步推行少年犯行刑社会化，建立少年刑事法院，组建少年司法队伍。     

追寻少年司法的胎痕——评《超越刑事司法:美国少年司法史纲》

姚建龙博士<超越刑事司法>一书对少年司法的历史和本质进行了详细探究:社会发展延长了人们的少年时期,少年司法得以产生,成人社会控制少年的需要是少年司法起源与变迁的真正动力.同时,该书启迪了现实的少年司法实践,那就是在扬弃中改进少年司法,在设计少年案件与成年人案件分案处理机制、特殊审理机制以及判前判后的帮教等等制度时,需要一种特别的关切.     

追寻少年司法的胎痕

姚建龙博士《超越刑事司法》一书对少年司法的历史和本质进行了详细探究：社会发展延长了人们的少年时期，少年司法得以产生，成人社会控制少年的需要是少年司法起源与变迁的真正动力。同时，该书启迪了现实的少年司法实践，那就是在扬弃中改进少年司法，在设计少年案件与成年人案件分案处理机制、特殊审理机制以及判前判后的帮教等等制度时，需要一种特别的关切。     

评最高人民法院少年综合庭试点改革

作为一项建国以来我国少年司法领域最重大的一次统一少年司法改革措施,最高人民法院少年综合庭试点改革所创造的机遇与风险并存。从改革的总体方向而言,其少年法庭的"非刑事化"、独立化的目标符合各国少年司法改革的经验与少年司法制度的特性要求,也有着稳定少年法庭机构与队伍,推动中国未成年人保护法制进步的意义。但从改革的思路与具体设计来看,过于"跳跃式"地扩充受案范围,可能会造成少年法庭失去特性、脱离少年司法传统,以及限制地方少年司法探索等风险。     

儿童福利视野下的少年司法路径选择

经过近三十年的探索与发展,我国少年司法制度在维护未成年人合法权益及预防未成年人违法犯罪上取得较大成绩。随着少年司法改革的进一步深化及与国际接轨的沉重压力,当前迫切需要以儿童福利理念、机制与政策全面贯彻少年司法始终,逐步建立、健全少年司法与刑事司法双轨制,并提升少年刑事司法、少年民事司法及少年行政司法一体化建设,推动青少年事务局等专门性、专业性政府协调机构的建立。     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

The Double Paradox of Juvenile Justice

This article considers the history of a century of juvenile justice. Illinois 'invented' the separate 'children's court' in 1899 and this concept was spearheaded in Northern America, Great Britain and continental Europe in the first decades of the new century. However, a century after its foundation the future of the juvenile court is in doubt everywhere in the Western world. Some conclude that there is a cyclical pattern in juvenile justice policies. That proposition is rejected in this article. The proposition of a cyclical pattern also presupposes that there is no real problem at stake in treating juvenile offenders. The main point of this article, however, is that juvenile justice cannot escape trying to solve a very complicated foundational issue. This issue is a double paradox, that is, juvenile justice has to solve two philosophical questions: the justification of punishment and the justification of punishment for non-adults. This diagnosis presents a new conceptual framework for an analysis of the history of juvenile justice.     

When does Race and Gender Matter? The Interrelationships between the Gender of Probation Officers and Juvenile Court Detention and Intake Outcomes

Racial and gender disparities in case outcomes have recently been explained by a focus on the characteristics of court officers within the context of the interplay between discretion, stereotyping, and the perceptions of decision-makers. Using data within a single juvenile court jurisdiction, the present study continues this line of inquiry to assess: (1) how race and gender, individually and in combination, influence juvenile justice decision-making and (2) how court outcomes for certain race/gender combinations are conditioned by the gender of the court officer. Results indicate that, to some degree, the race and gender of the youth along with the gender of the court officer influenced case outcomes; however, the findings were not always in the expected direction. The results have implications for broadening the contexts of detention and intake decision-making, and may also better inform efforts to address the equitable treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system.     

Role of voice in the legal process*

As communities face unrest and protest because of perceived racial bias and decreased trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, it is critical to explore mechanisms that foster institutional legitimacy. Voice is a central element in the procedural justice framework because it is anticipated to promote process control as well as a shared understanding between institutions and communities. As a concept, however, voice is undertheorized. Measures of voice used in legitimacy research may result in oversimplification of the concept, not fully capturing the struggles disadvantaged people face in trying to exercise influence in the court system. Through the use of rich data from qualitative interviews with youth and families involved in the juvenile justice system and in‐depth observations of juvenile court events, we explore what voice is, the mechanisms through which people try to assert voice, and how voice matters in the legal process. Respondents sought voice for many reasons, including to validate their experiences, to affirm their membership in a community, and to assert concerns about perceived police misconduct. Contrary to traditional conceptualizations of voice as a static event (e.g., having voice or not having voice), voice was a process of negotiating dialogue between court officials and court participants throughout the legal process.     

From Centre Stage to Spear Carrier: The Repositioning of the English Juvenile Court

The approach of the new millennium poses significant challenges for the way in which the youth justice system in general, and the juvenile (now youth) court in particular, develops in the future. The past one hundred years of the juvenile court in England and Wales have seen its role both flow and ebb. It currently faces further significant repositioning. The author distinguishes four themes which have influenced the marginalisation of the juvenile court: bifurcation, diversion, manageralism and legislation of the court.     

The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative Justice

Maloney, Armstrong, and Romig presented a portrait of “Joey,” who was the exemplar of what was wrong with the juvenile justice system, in 1988 when they published The Balanced Approach in this Journal. In response, they reimagined a juvenile justice system predicated on balancing three fundamental goals—protection of community, accountability to victims, and development of competencies to prepare juvenile court‐involved youth for productive roles in their communities. The authors examine the evolution of balanced and restorative justice and re‐imagine how Joey's life may have been different at critical junctures of his juvenile court involvement.     

Juvenile Justice and the 'Shift to the Left'

The notion of 'shift' is used as a symbol for procedure in criminal cases, understood as a sequence of legal interferences by the police, the prosecution and by proceedings in court. If this sequence is symbolised by a horizontal line, the procedural stages move from left to right. But the distribution of competences has recently lost its prior balance, due to 'modern' crime and society: The functions of the judge appear reduced, whereas the range of action of the prosecution has widened; also the police has gained more influence. On the symbolic line of procedural stages this all makes for a 'shift to the left'. This paper deals with the question as to whether juvenile justice is undergoing the same changes. The first answer is 'yes', based on the enlarged diversionary competence of prosecutors and the police. From a different perspective, however, juvenile offending is a 'natural' phenomenon connected with young age, which a priori places juvenile justice on a 'left' position of the imagined line. A plea is made for this juvenile justice to stick to its inherent concern for young offenders individually and not to sacrifice this to collective interests in public order and safety.     

The role of power in shaming interactions: how social control is performed in a juvenile court

Shaming is a mechanism theorists have highlighted as an important means of social control. However, this concept and the ways in which officials use shame in the context of formal social control is not easily studied. Interviews with a Southern California juvenile court judge and observations of his interactions with youths on probation are used to illustrate the reflexive nature of social control interactions. This ethnographic study illustrates how the emotion of shame is used to manage delinquent and defiant young people in a justice setting. A nuanced analysis of the various strategies used by this juvenile court judge to evoke signs of remorse, accountability, and deference from young offenders is provided. Such an investigation informs theoretical perspectives on how social control is employed, highlights the important role of power in the interactions, and provides a better understanding of theoretical concepts, such as reintegration and stigmatization.