司法院釋字第664 號後虞犯制度改革之政策方針及其 合理性——以司法院少事法研修會草案為中心

The Appropriateness of Reform concerning Status Offenders after Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 664—Focusing on the Proposed Amendment of Juvenile Delinquency Act

薛巧翊(Chiao-Yi Hsueh)

指導教授 ： 李茂生

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00446

摘要

司法院釋字664號後，掀起虞犯少年是否應受司法管轄的爭議，並使司法院於民國102年召開少事法研究修正委員會，針對現行少年事件處理法進行修正檢討並制定草案。該草案就虞犯少年的部份，一方面限縮其成立，另一方面採取行政優先，司法劣後的管轄手段。本文主要目的，便是探討該草案關於前開條文變革的適合性。
關於草案適合性，本文認為應先確立國家有干預少年行為的正當性基礎後，方選擇國家干預的手段。故，本文透過釐清少年概念與成人概念的區別，找出現代少年概念最重要的核心要素——內生性，確立國家有保護少年內生性要素經具體化成法律概念的「健全成長發達權」的義務，並認為國家有提供少年於健全成長發達權面相中的「健全成長環境權」的義務。基此，本文進一步認為，國家有義務於少年的健全成長環境權遭侵蝕的時點進入保護少年，而該時點，透過污名化效應以及標籤效應的觀察，應為少年遭權威機關標籤時，為成為問題少年的時點。
確立國家應介入保護的時點後，本文參酌美國法關於少年司法制度近一世紀以來的變革，以及該變革導致虞犯少年的轉向政策以及去機構化政策的結果，發現若無龐大資金支撐該政策以及合適的替代機構式處遇措施，無法真正解決少年標籤問題以及犯罪問題，亦恐生少年司法的嚴罰化及成人化趨勢，導致少年司法福祉意義的消融。
故，本文基於虞犯少年的本質，認為就虞犯少年行為本質所蘊含類似於犯罪少年行為的加害性，鑑於該行為以及其虞犯性為少年自身健全成長環境所帶來的侵害程度（包括內外在評價作用以及自陷犯罪風險）近似於犯罪少年，國家必須採取司法福利的保護手段，方有可能抗衡虞犯少年因行為所受的侵害。
綜上所述，本文認為，草案針對虞犯少年範圍的具體限縮，雖合理的定性出虞犯少年的本質，然而對於該等經限縮後的虞犯少年採取行政先行、司法劣後的立場，在司法無法即時介入管理並監督虞犯少年處遇的情況下，恐無法達到國家保護虞犯少年的真正目的。

關鍵字

少年概念 ； 虞犯少年 ； 標籤理論 ； 機構式處遇 ； 司法管轄 ； 行政管轄

並列摘要

The release of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 664 triggered disputes over whether status offenders should be under juvenile jurisdiction or not. It also led to amendment of Juvenile Delinquency Act with respect to status offenders in 2013. The draft amendment reduced the scope of status offenders, and set administrative measures as priorities when it comes to status offenders. Only when the administrative measures fail will the status offenders be sent to juvenile court. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the appropriateness of the reform concerning status offenders in juvenile justice.
To analyze appropriateness of the draft amendment, legitimacy of government intervention in juvenile status offenses has to be sought first, and then the options for intervention may be considered. The thesis holds that one of the most important elements of childhood is endogeneity, which set distinctions between children and adults. A legal right to protect endogeneity is the right to develop soundly. The country has the duty and right to protect that right of children and offers an appropriate environment to children to grow up. Therefore, this thesis further holds that the proper moment the country shall intervene to protect a juvenile is when he or she is labeled as a delinquent or wayward child by government offices, because this is the time when a child begins to suffer from the labeling and stigmatization.
By referring to the reform of juvenile justice in the United States within the past century, and the results of the diversion and deinstitutionalization of juvenile status offenses owing to the reform, this thesis considers that enacting the policy of diversion and deinstitutionalization of status offenders cannot really solve the labeling problem of status offenders and juvenile crimes. The labeling and stigmatization inherent in a juvenile's contact with the juvenile court might also occur in community-based treatment programs.
Accordingly, this thesis holds that the proper solution is to mitigate the negative influence on juvenile status offenders. Considering the essences of juvenile status offenses, which are similar to juvenile delinquency, and the possibilities for juvenile status offenders to commit crimes, juvenile status offenses should remain subject to juvenile jurisdiction.
In summary, this thesis holds that the draft amendment correctly reflect the essences of juvenile status offenses by reducing types of status offenders, but the policy that divert status offenders to community-based treatment programs first without contacting juvenile court, might not meet the purpose of juvenile protection.

並列關鍵字

concept of children ； status offenders ； labeling theory ； juvenile justice

參考文獻

黃義成（2013）。〈少年虞犯法理之省思與建構〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第42卷第3期，頁631-714。

李茂生（2000）。〈少年犯罪的預防與矯治制度的批判-一個系統論的考察〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第29卷第2期，頁79-174。

李茂生（1999）。〈新少年事件處理法的立法基本策略—後現代法秩序序說〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第28卷第2期，頁141-228。

周愫嫻（2004）。〈社會階級與少年偏差行為關係〉，《犯罪學期刊》，第7卷第1期，頁31-48。

周愫嫻（1995）。〈正式與非正式社會控制對青少年偏差行為的嚇阻效果〉，《犯罪學期刊》，第1期，頁31-50。