论我国未成年犯的社区矫正

近年来,未成年人犯罪日益严重,而且其再犯罪机率不断增大,给我国的社会治安综合治理带来很大压力。未成年人年龄小、心智尚不成熟,对未成年犯实行以非监禁方式的社区矫正制度是非常必要的。我国社区矫正制度体系处于起步阶段,因此,需要加快社区矫正的立法步伐、明确矫正主体、打造专业的矫正队伍、强化群众基础,从而建立起一套完善的社区矫正体系以减少和预防未成年人犯罪。     

论我国未成年犯社区矫正的必要性及可行性

当前,我国未成年人犯罪数量快速增长,且再犯罪率很高,这表明传统的未成年犯矫正工作已不适应现在矫正工作的需要。对未成年犯进行社区矫正,是近年来世界各国刑罚执行制度的一个发展趋势。它彰显了人道主义和人文关怀精神,有利于对未成年犯的再社会化,能够有效地克服对未成年犯科以监禁刑罚所产生的弊端。从未成年犯社区矫正的基本概念入手,论述我国未成年犯适用社区矫正的必要性及可行性。     

未成年人犯罪社区矫正制度研究

作为对未成年犯处遇的一种特殊方法,未成年犯的社区矫正在许多国际公约中都有明确的规定,并且,世界许多国家和地区也都颁布了相应的法律法规,从而形成了未成年犯社区矫正的司法体系。我国未成年犯社区矫正工作起步较晚,缺乏适合未成年犯特点的社区矫正项目,缺乏对未成年犯矫正的专门机关及其工作人员,社区矫正措施过于形式化,社区矫正缺乏统一标准,社会各界配合不强。因此,推进我国未成年犯社区矫正制度的完善,需要完善机构设置,完善社区矫正运行机制,建立专业矫正队伍,设立多种矫正措施并加大考验力度,落实未成年犯案底消灭制度,构建有效完备的矫正评估制度和标准。     

未成年人犯罪社区矫正制度研究北大核心

作为对未成年犯处遇的一种特殊方法,未成年犯的社区矫正在许多国际公约中都有明确的规定,并且,世界许多国家和地区也都颁布了相应的法律法规,从而形成了未成年犯社区矫正的司法体系。我国未成年犯社区矫正工作起步较晚,缺乏适合未成年犯特点的社区矫正项目,缺乏对未成年犯矫正的专门机关及其工作人员,社区矫正措施过于形式化,社区矫正缺乏统一标准,社会各界配合不强。因此,推进我国未成年犯社区矫正制度的完善,需要完善机构设置,完善社区矫正运行机制,建立专业矫正队伍,设立多种矫正措施并加大考验力度,落实未成年犯案底消灭制度,构建有效完备的矫正评估制度和标准。     

论我国未成年犯社区矫正制度之完善

未成年犯社区矫正是一个国家未成年人刑罚制度中重要的组成部分,它的发展状况能反映该国家的刑罚制度的文明程度。未成年犯社区矫正作为一种新型的处理未成年犯的刑罚制度,在对未成年犯人的刑罚惩罚中起到越来越重要的作用。未成年犯社区矫作为一种人道、有效、经济的未成年犯罪惩罚机制,在一定程度上降低了行刑的成本,缓解了监狱拥挤压力,增强了行刑的实际效果,更有利于达到刑罚的真正目的。     

社区矫正中未成年人检察工作方法研究

《刑法修正案八》的出台标志着我国社区矫正制度的正式入刑建立,其中对未成年人符合缓刑基本条件时应当宣告缓刑的规定也使未成年犯非监禁刑的适用随之扩大,检察机关对于社区矫正未成年人的检察制度也要同步完善.     

试论未成年犯社区矫正机制的构建

社区矫正是预防未成年人犯罪行之有效的行刑社会化方式，符合对未成年犯行刑的非刑事化、非监禁化和轻刑化的国际发展趋势。因此，我国应将重点放在对未成年犯的社区矫正机制的构建上。具体来说，应从以下四个方面予以考虑，即树立对未成年犯适用社区矫正的理念；建立、健全社区矫正立法；设立专门的社区矫正机构；细化对未成年犯适用社区矫正的措施。     

浅谈我国未成年人社区矫正制度的现状和完善

社区矫正是《刑法修正案(八)》第一次写入刑法条文的,在此之前,各地也对这一制度进行过探索,这项制度的观念已经逐渐为我国所接受,尤其是对于未成年人来说,更加适宜针对未成年犯的身心健康发展,同时也是更好的对未成年人的一种保护。但是,我国目前为止还没有提出专门的"未成年人社区矫正法",缺乏对未成年人足够的关注,在实践中还存在着不足,急需建立完善的未成年人社区矫正制度,以便更好的发挥社区矫正的作用。     

论我国未成年犯社区矫正制度的构建

全国每年新判处的每14—15个罪犯中就有一名是未成年犯,这给社会造成了较大的危害。而我国从2003年开始实施的社区矫正制度并没有将未成年犯作为一个特殊的矫正群体来对待,这样,既不利于对他们的身心保护,也不利于他们的健康发展,更不符合国际公约的有关规定,而西方许多国家已采取了专门适用于未成年犯特点的社区矫正管理制度,并有专门的管理机构和不同于成人的专业化管理人员。因此,本文认为为了预防和减少未成年人犯罪及犯罪后能尽快回归社会,我国有必要针对未成年人犯罪状况及心理、生理特点和法律保护的特殊要求,借鉴国外的有益经验,尽快建立起具有我国特色的未成年犯社区矫正制度。     

未成年犯社区矫正中的法律主体研究

我国的社区矫正对未成年犯问题没有真正作出制度性安排。社区矫正的制度框架中必须包含对未成年犯的专门设计。社区矫正中法律主体的资格认定可归依到对利益的判断与考量。未成年犯社区矫正中法律主体的体系应包括矫正对象未成年犯、矫正主体国家、社会、家庭。未成年犯社区矫正法律主体行为框架的设计,须考虑未成年犯矫正目标与制度属性之互动。     

完善我国未成年犯社区矫正制度的思考

我国的未成年犯社区矫正还处在摸索阶段，许多制度尚未完善，需要根据我国的具体国情以及借鉴外国的先进经验，从矫正执行主体、矫正项目、立法等三个方面入手，探索完善我国未成年犯社区矫正制度。     

论我国社区矫正的组织制度

社区矫正的组织制度是社区矫正制度的重要组成部分。我国现行的社区矫正试点工作存在着司法行政机关参与无法律依据、社区矫正人员无执法主体资格以及社区矫正机构多头管理等问题。因此,在法律层面上建立由社区矫正官为中心的社区矫正官制度非常必要。应该在司法行政机关———司法所内设置社区矫正官一职,专司社区矫正的管理和执行工作,并赋予其执法主体的资格。同时,公安机关应该退出社区矫正。     

Theoretical Foundations for the Design and Placement of Community-Based Treatment Facilities for Juveniles

With deinstitutionalization and community-based treatment of delinquents becoming more common, the need for facilities compatible with re-integration efforts is crucial. In line with the increasing local needs for dealing with juvenile offenders in the community, this paper advocates the use of delinquency theory as the conceptual foundation for the architectural design and placement of community-based alternatives to incarceration. In addition, we present guidelines for the site selection, community acceptance and physical design of a model community-based treatment facility for minor offenders, which are based on a theoretical integration of social control theory and the labeling approach.     

ESTIMATING A DOSE‐RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LENGTH OF STAY AND FUTURE RECIDIVISM IN SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

The effect of sanctions on subsequent criminal activity is of central theoretical importance in criminology. A key question for juvenile justice policy is the degree to which serious juvenile offenders respond to sanctions and/or treatment administered by the juvenile court. The policy question germane to this debate is finding the level of confinement within the juvenile justice system that maximizes the public safety and therapeutic benefits of institutional confinement. Unfortunately, research on this issue has been limited with regard to serious juvenile offenders. We use longitudinal data from a large sample of serious juvenile offenders from two large cities to 1) estimate a causal treatment effect of institutional placement, as opposed to probation, on future rate of rearrest and 2) investigate the existence of a marginal effect (i.e., benefit) for longer length of stay once the institutional placement decision had been made. We accomplish the latter by determining a dose‐response relationship between the length of stay and future rates of rearrest and self‐reported offending. The results suggest that an overall null effect of placement exists on future rates of rearrest or self‐reported offending for serious juvenile offenders. We also find that, for the group placed out of the community, it is apparent that little or no marginal benefit exists for longer lengths of stay. Theoretical, empirical, and policy issues are outlined.     

Juvenile Delinquency in Post-Mao China

The post-Mao de-politicization put an end to the continuous class struggle in China. After the post-Mao government had removed the radical elements from the party and united the society by its appealing modernization program, it directed its attention to street crime and juvenile and young offenders. Crime committed by juvenile and young offenders has become a serious social problem. It is estimated that among the total offenders apprehended by the police, 70% are under the age of 25, and 30% under the age of 18. Despite the party's tough policy, juvenile crime is increasing and becoming more organized and violent. The paralysis of the Maoist social control system is stressed in explaining the increase in crime. The disruption in the family structure, in school and work patterns, and in neighbourhood organizations, in conjunction with a sweeping crisis of belief among the populace in general, has created a vacuum of social control in post-Mao Chinese society. The seriousness of juvenile delinquency and the lack of community undertakings have forced the government to institutionalize and legalize its control over juvenile and young offenders.     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder

Examines citizens' views about when juveniles accused of homicide should be tried and punished as adults. Responses from two randomly selected samples of adult Georgia residents suggest that these views are strongly influenced by whether adolescent defendants have been victims of abuse. Laypersons prefer juvenile court for juveniles who kill abusive parents (76% for first time offenders. 77% for those with one prior adjudication). Respondents are split concerning how to punish abused juveniles who have two prior adjudications (49% recommend juvenile court) and abused juveniles with one prior offense who kill a neighbor (48% recommend juvenile court). Most respondents, however, prefer adult court for repeat offenders who kill and have no history of child abuse. These findings suggest that legislative automatic transfers are overly simplistic compared to the contextual sensitivity of community sentiment. Policymakers may have serious misconceptions of societal views of fairness in this area.     

Juvenile Sexual Murderers: Examination and Classification of the Crime-Commission Process

This study aims to empirically explore the crime-commission process of juvenile sexual homicide offenders (SHOs). First, a comparison between the crime-commission process of juvenile and adult SHOs is undertaken, while as a second step, this study also provides an empirical classification specific to juvenile SHOs. The sample used in this study consists of 55 juvenile SHOs and 281 adult SHOs. A sequential binomial regression was used to compare at the multivariate level the two groups of offenders, while a latent class analysis was used to examine the relationships between each step of the crime-commission process of juvenile SHOs. Our findings suggest that the crime-commission process of juvenile SHOs present differences when compared with adult SHOs. Moreover, we identified four different patterns in juvenile sexual homicide: explosive opportunistic, sadistic, overcontrolled anger, and predator. Theoretical and practical implications in terms of criminal investigations as well as offenders’ management and treatment are discussed.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

Country Profile: A Review of the New Juvenile Offenders Status in Cambodia

This publication seeks to explore whether the position of juvenile offenders vis‐à‐vis the Cambodian criminal law has changed with the passage of the new criminal legislation and whether this change has been positive or otherwise. The quality of this change will demonstrate to the reader whether the overall process of the reform of the juvenile justice component of the Cambodian system of criminal justice, which spans the last fifteen years and has been funded by the international community, has been a success. The author limited the scope of this inquiry to a comparison between the various domestic laws applicable to juvenile offenders and did not include comparisons with international law, model laws or juvenile laws of other states. Being the first publication of its kind, this analysis limits its claim to the analysis of the relevant statutory provisions rather than ‘practice notes’ which have yet to develop.