日本非行少年的法律保护及启示

在日本,少年非行是指14岁以上20岁未满少年的犯罪行为、14岁未满少年的触法行为以及虞犯等三方面的总称,主要由《少年法》及《儿童福祉法》等法律予以规制。《少年法》以少年的人权保障和健康成长为目的、以保护主义的社会复归为理念,与《儿童福祉法》等共同构成非行少年的法律保护体系。家庭裁判所以少年事件为主要审理对象、以保护处分为主要处罚手段,与社会福祉性质的儿童相谈所共同担负起日本的少年保护事业。官民协动与社会参与制度是对我们的最大的启示,我国要进一步加强少年保护理念的转变,完善我国的少年保护体制,将其建设成为全民参与的社会事业。     

刑事诉讼安全价值与自由价值的统筹实现

刑事和解,又称犯罪人与被害者的和解(victim offender reconciliation),是指在犯罪发生之后,犯罪人与被害者双方直接协商解决刑事纠纷,其目的是为了恢复被犯罪人所破坏的社会关系、弥补被害人所受到的损害、     

论少年刑法

少年刑法可作广义、狭义之分。狭义的少年刑法是指规定少年犯罪与刑罚的法律规范的总称。广义的少年刑法则是指关于不良行为、少年犯罪,以及保护处分与少年刑罚的法律规范的总称。迄今为止我国尚缺乏现代意义上的少年刑法。少年刑法是我国刑法制度所忽略的领域。创建现代意义上的少年刑法,实现对少年犯罪处遇以刑罚为重心到以保护处分为重心的转变,应当成为我国今后刑法改革的重点之一。     

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。     

日本1987年版犯罪白皮书概要——关于犯罪及对犯罪者处遇的国民意识

<正> 1987年版犯罪白皮书于9月29日经内阁会议同意已经公布。白皮书由四编组成:第一编是以1986年为中心概观最近的犯罪动向,第二编是介绍在检察、裁判所、矫正、保护各阶段犯罪者处迂的实际情况,第三编是关于少年非行的记述;第四编是作为特集,专门收集了关于犯罪及对犯罪者处遇的国民意识。下面介绍其概要。     

少年司法制度论纲

未成年人的违法犯罪与成年人的违法犯罪有质的不同。因此,处理未成年人违法犯罪的司法制度也应与处理成年人违法犯罪的普通司法制度有所区别。为了保护未成年人的健康成长,有效预防和减少未成年人犯罪,我国应当尽快建立和完善少年司法制度。少年司法制度是否完备,是衡量一个国家法制文明发展程度的重要标志。少年法院是少年司法制度的核心;少年法,是少年司法制度的基石;少年司法处遇措施是少年司法制度的灵魂。     

百年嬗变:美国少年司法之溯源、衍变及展望

少年司法肇始于美国,至今已有110余年的历史。但美国少年司法发展历程并非一帆风顺,先后历经前少年法院时期、少年法院创设与探索期、少年权利时期以及少年司法晚近变革期等四个主要阶段。其间,少年司法政策因实证主义兴起与新刑事古典主义复兴等社会思潮交叉影响不免时常进退辗转,甚至出现少年法院废除论的主张。对美国少年司法与未成年人保护追根溯源及总结,以吸取其改革中的经验与教训,以供构建我国少年司法制度反省、参酌和借鉴实有必要。     

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.     

德意志联邦共和国少年法院的动向

<正> 一、历史的考察1899年美国伊利诺斯州,创建了世界上第一个少年法院。德国于1908年在科隆建立了第一个少年法院,接着在法兰克福也建立了少年法院。1912年按照美国的模式,德国在摩泽尔河畔的威奇托利(音译)建立了第一个少年监狱。然而,本来在汉堡对于少年犯罪的处理方法,是准备采取少年福利委员会的形式。成立少年福利委员会的议案规定,少年福利委员会的组成,除法学家外,还有各种社会科学领域     

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。     

When Juveniles Commit Sexual Offenses: Considerations and Recommendations for Judges

Considering sexual offenders’ impact on victims, families, and communities, one cannot understate the importance of utilizing evidence‐based dispositions with juvenile offenders adjudicated for sexual offenses. This proves difficult, however, as the body of literature regarding juvenile sexual offenders is complex and often misunderstood. Research on how juvenile sexual offenders experience – broadly construed – the juvenile justice process is particularly sparse. The research that is available about juvenile sexual offender treatment, recidivism, and outcomes in general tends to be mixed as to the best way to deal with this distinctly stigmatized population. Thus, the purpose of this review article is primarily educational in that we summarize the highlights of current research and thinking in regards to juvenile sexual offenders with which judges should be familiar, and subsequently offer practice recommendations. The ultimate goal in offering and applying these recommendations in juvenile court settings is to help alleviate potential collateral consequences, increase positive long‐term outcomes for juveniles, and increase public safety.     

Juvenile Justice in Oregon: Balanced and Restorative Justice in Action

The goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) are to hold juvenile offenders meaningfully accountable, hear and empower crime victims and engage communities both as stakeholders who have been negatively impacted and as advocates to make things right for the crime victim, offender, and community. This article examines how several Oregon juvenile justice agencies have put BARJ into action over the last 25 years, highlighting specific examples of how several agencies have made this the philosophical underpinning of their work. An overview of the philosophical principles, values, and goals that drive this approach is also discussed.     

BUILDING A MULTIDISCIPLINARY, COLLABORATIVE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

The process of preparing lawyers and other professionals to work for the benefit of troubled children requires an understanding of concepts that extend far beyond the traditional course structure currently employed in American law schools. It is clear that mental health problems of children and families, compounded by substance abuse, influence behavior, resulting in children entering family and juvenile courts as victims of abuse or neglect and committing criminal acts. It is incumbent on law schools to incorporate training in fields far different from the traditional didactic experience in legal curricula if they are to address the current needs of children and familes who are ensnared in the nation's juvenile justice system. The beginning point of this process is within the legal training apparatus of America. Law schools must expand their curriculum to incorporate other disciplines to produce an advocate capable of serving the interest of children and society.     

The Impact of Safe Harbor Legislation on Court Proceedings Involving Sex Trafficked Youth: A Qualitative Investigation of Judicial Perspectives

The passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) facilitated the conceptual shift in reframing youth involved in sex trafficking as victims, rather than criminals. Many states have passed legislation in the form of Safe Harbor laws to protect sex trafficked juveniles from criminal charges and provide rehabilitative services (Polaris, 2015). Nevertheless, limited research has examined the impact of Safe Harbor laws and the role juvenile and family court judges play in how minor victims of sex trafficking are treated by the court system. Consequently, the purpose of this qualitative study was to examine juvenile and family court judges’ knowledge and perceptions of Safe Harbor legislation and identify legal challenges when presiding over cases involving sexually exploited youth. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a national sample (N = 82) of family and juvenile court judges. Findings suggest that respondents perceive Safe Harbor laws to have positively affected both attitudes and practices, although several challenges and unintended negative effects were identified. Further, dispositional issues, difficulties with case identification, legal and policy issues, and challenges with interagency collaboration were identified as ongoing issues to address. Legal implications as well as practice and policy considerations based on the study findings are discussed.     

当前青少年犯罪成因及对策研究——以东莞市青少年犯罪为研究模本

目前我国正处于社会转型时期,存在诸多容易诱发青少年犯罪的不良因素,青少年犯罪的形势依然严峻。作为新兴制造业城市的代表,东莞独特的经济结构和人口构成使其青少年犯罪在数量、主体、类型等方面具有明显特征。"东莞式"青少年犯罪既有着青少年自身原因,也有着家庭与学校教育缺位以及不良文化冲击的影响,更有着产业结构形成的外来人口盲目涌入而造成的城市不适应性方面的因素。     

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.     

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.