美国少年司法之风雨百年

1899年,美国伊利诺伊州制定了世界上第一部少年法——《少年法院法》,以一套完全不同于成人刑法的规则处理少年案件,这标志着现代少年刑法的诞生。     

美国少年司法状况报告

少年司法是美国法律制度的重要组成部分,有其独立程序和法律理念.自上个世纪六十年代以来,少年法庭受到来自自由主义和保守主义的批评.自由主义认为,少年法庭的法官经常以一种任意的、歧视的、甚至是专制的方式行使着家长式的权威;保守主义则认为少年法庭过于仁慈,尤其是对实施暴力犯罪和反复实施犯罪的违法者.来自两方面的挑战,对美国少年司法制度的改革产生了很大影响,并一直延续到现在.     

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。     

标签理论及其对美国少年司法改革之影响

标签理论认为,控制犯罪的机制也是导致个体犯罪的原因。这样一种理论具有颠覆传统犯罪理论的解构意味,把批判的矛头直接转向了那些控制犯罪的机制。以超前干预潜在犯罪人为重要特点的少年司法,自然成了这一理论批判的靶子。标签理论在20世纪60年代和70年代成为对美国少年司法制度进行广泛批判和改革的理论基础。这一理论所倡导的非犯罪化、分流、非机构化等政策建议,对美国少年司法制度的改革与发展产生了广泛的影响。     

少年司法的起源:美国少年矫正机构运动的兴起

美国于19世纪兴起的少年矫正机构运动,是少年司法从普通刑事司法中分离出来的开始。少年矫正机构运动试图改革一元化刑事司法的弊端,为违法少年创造良好的成长环境并矫正其罪错行为。显然,这一改革实际上也完善了对少年,特别是下层贫民、移民和闲散少年的社会控制机能。尽管这一改革充满着争议,但在“少年福利”的名义下,国家亲权成功地凌驾于父母亲权之上,奠定了少年司法干预权的合法化基础。     

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.     

美国少年法院运动的起源与展开

1899年美国伊利诺斯州颁布了世界上第一个《少年法院法》,并建立了世界上第一个少年法院,标志着现代少年司法制度的诞生。少年司法制度的诞生主要是在"为了少年福利"的名义下产生的,因此具有明显的福利化特征。这样一种福利型少年司法制度(伊州模式)在20世纪前期受到了美国各州乃至世界上诸多国家的普遍认同,由此形成了20世纪著名的少年法院运动。少年法院运动的兴起,不仅仅是因为这种对孩子给与特别关爱的做法符合人类的自然情感,适应了人道主义观念的发展和法治进步的需求,也因为在传统的家庭、社区控制功能衰弱的情况下,这样一种正式的社会控制机制适应了弥补成人社会对少年群体(尤其是下层少年群体)控制真空的需要。     

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。     

国家亲权理论与少年司法——以美国少年司法为中心的研究

国家亲权理论是英美法系国家少年司法制度的基本理论根基,它强调国家对未成年人的积极保护责任,要求超越报应主义观念,遵循"未成年人最大利益原则"来处理少年罪错行为。国家亲权理论对于克服刑事古典学派的弊端,推动少年司法制度的进步发挥了重要的作用。但国家亲权理论在少年司法中的应用容易产生理念与实践之间的落差,如何缩小这种落差是英美国家少年司法改革的重要特征。中国的少年司法政策与国家亲权理论存在一定的类同之处,在今后的少年司法改革中应当注意吸收国家亲权理论与英美国家少年司法整合历程中的经验与教训。     

少年司法规律与检察改革研究

少年司法法律可借用医学术语,分为辨证施治规律、治病救人规律、专科门诊规律、表里兼治规律、反复施治规律和扶正祛邪规律,以达到＂惩前毖后,治病救人＂的目的。当前我国少年司法活动中还存在诸如法律法规不健全、专门的未成年人司法机构未全面建立、犯罪预防及回访帮教工作不到位等不足,检察机关应从观念层面、立法层面、组织机构层面、执法层面等角度全面创新完善未成年人犯罪工作机制。     

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。     

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.     

论刑事法的历史分析

历史分析，作为法学重要的研究方法之一，对于刑事法研究具有积极意义。对中国当代刑事法进行历史分析，并非去发现所谓的“民族精神”，而是寻找刑事法律制度得以形成的脉络，以及在法制演进中的政治、经济和文化因素。在刑事法学研究中运用这种分析方法，具体表现为历史比较研究、历史的社会研究以及历史的价值研究。对中国刑事法发展作历史研究，应区分不同时代，并有目的性地进行研究，进而挖掘其中可为当代刑事法发展利用的有益因素。     

Juvenile Court Context and Detention Decisions: Reconsidering the Role of Race,Ethnicity, and Community Characteristics in Juvenile Court Processes

The relationship between race/ethnicity, community dynamics, and juvenile court processes has long been established. Prior research has relied on city‐ or county‐level measures of community characteristics (e.g., racial composition, poverty) to examine how racial groups are processed within juvenile courts. To date, no study has utilized finer scale measures of geographic areas to examine how characteristics of juveniles’ communities impact court decisions. By utilizing official juvenile court data from a city in the southwest, this study draws upon attribution theory to examine how economic and crime community‐level measures directly and indirectly influence detention outcomes. Findings reveal that the effect of race and ethnicity in detention outcomes varies across communities, and the effect of ethnicity in detention decisions is mediated by economic community‐level measures. The theoretical and policy implications of the study findings are discussed.     

论人大对司法的个案监督与法院审判独立原则

个案监督是我国一些地方人大近年来开始运用的一种监督方式,但对它的法律依据和现实意义,实践中存在不同看法。从保障审判公正的角度看,个案监督这一做法与独立审判原则存在着对立和冲突。人大对审判工作的合理监督,应当着眼于在更高层次上进行全局性的监督,以维护法院的独立审判原则。     

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.     

论司法公正与我国法院体制改革

法院应当在社会关系中具有独立性和中立性,这是体现司法公正的前提和条件。对照联合国关于法院为司法公正的应当具有独立性的通常标准,可以查找出我国法院在体制方面存在一些不足,我国法院体制在实现司法公正方面应当进行改革。     

Reforming the Role of Magistrates: Implications for Summary Justice in England and Wales

The role of lay magistrates in England and Wales has been progressively undermined by protracted processes of reform over the last two decades. Current government proposals aim to reorient and ‘strengthen’ their function through the creation of new magisterial responsibilities such as oversight of out of court disposals and greater involvement with local justice initiatives. This article argues that while these proposals embody necessary and important areas for reform, taken in isolation they will fail to consolidate the role of magistrates in summary justice unless they are enacted alongside other measures which aim to reaffirm the status of lay justices, and which seek to reverse the trend which has prioritised administrative efficiency at the expense of lay justice. Rapidly declining magistrate numbers together with continuous (and continuing) programs of court closures are irreconcilable with the future viability of a lay magistracy.     

Juvenile Competency and Pretrial Due Process: A Call for Greater Protections in Massachusetts for Juveniles Residing in Procedural Purgatory

While juvenile courts continue to balance and reevaluate the dual goals of community safety and rehabilitation of youth, juveniles who are not competent to stand trial have been left without sufficient procedural protections. This paper examines Massachusetts’ approach to juvenile competency, due process, and pretrial procedure, within a national context. The inadequacies of the Massachusetts juvenile competency laws are not unique. Currently there are nineteen states that either entirely lack juvenile‐specific competency legislation or merely incorporate inapposite adult criminal statutes and standards into the juvenile context—making it difficult or impossible for those juvenile courts to dismiss or divert a delinquency petition following an incompetency finding. Massachusetts and states similarly situated should adopt explicit statutory language to delineate the basis for a juvenile incompetency finding and the grounds for dismissing delinquency complaints pretrial after an incompetency finding has been made. This paper proposes that Massachusetts adopt a timeline for effecting such dismissals based in part on the amount of time a juvenile could face if committed to the juvenile correctional authority following an adjudication of delinquency. The paper also recommends best practices of states that are pioneering juvenile legislative reforms like dismissal timelines and incompetency presumptions. Finally, we suggest a more stringent regulatory framework be put in place governing the pretrial detention of youths who have been found not competent to stand trial—a framework that recognizes and preserves the juvenile's substantive rights to education, mental health and rehabilitative services. Without legislation, juveniles found not competent to stand trial remain subject to the prospect of indefinite locked detention, often without access to the necessary services that contribute to future success as well as attainment of competency. This lack of due process runs counter to the foundational goals of the juvenile justice system.