透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.235.75.229
  • 學位論文

少年觀護所收容對少年再犯之影響

Impact of Short-term Juvenile Detention on Re-conviction Rates

指導教授 : 周愫嫻
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


我國少年事件處理法第26條第2款規定:少年法院於必要時,得裁定收容少年於少年觀護所。但以不能責付或以責付為顯不適當,而需收容者為限。此項規定與刑事訴訟法刑事被告的羈押要件相比,顯然較為抽象。因此,收容究屬少年事件調查審理終結前對少年人身自由限制的強制處分,還是兼具有輔導、矯治少年以避免少年再犯的功能?司法界尚有爭議。犯罪嚇阻理論認為拘禁於監所對犯罪人具有嚇阻以避免再犯的效果;逐級年齡非正式社會控制理論,認為矯正機構是人生重大事件,可提供犯罪者一個改變的契機,切斷過去的不良影響而中止再犯;但標籤理論卻認為司法機構收容少年,可能產生嚴重標籤效果。這顯示犯罪學理論界也有爭議。 本研究以2007、2008年進入臺灣某地方法院少年法庭的少年616人為對象,追蹤其兩年內再犯情況,探究在控制少年個人、家庭、犯罪嚴重性因素後,裁定收容與未收容少年觀護所兩組少年,兩年內再犯率是否有顯著差異及是否因收容期間長短,造成兩年內再犯率顯著差異。 研究發現司法收容會顯著增加男性少年、觸犯刑罰法律、竊盜少年、有前案少年兩年內再犯率,但收容對虞犯少年、逃學逃家少年的再犯率無顯著影響。整體而言,收容以及收容時間長短對於預防少年再犯並無顯著效果,且對特定少年反而增加再犯率。 本文提出四點建議:一、收容制度的修正,包括收容的法定要件應更具體;虞犯宜與犯罪較嚴重者分開收容;法官於裁定收容前,應先調查是否具備收容要件;收容期間宜縮短為最長4個月等。二、少年收容處所宜針對少年不同需求而有多元型態,除了隸屬法務部的獨立少年觀護所外,也應有隸屬社會福利部門的安置處所。三、司法體系於調查審理階段,應儘量減少矯正機構收容的適用。四、其他政府機構與司法機構合作,減少少年進入易標籤化的司法系統。

關鍵字

少年收容 少年觀護所 再犯

並列摘要


Article 26, Sub-section 2 of the Juvenile Proceeding Act of Republic of China provides that the Juvenile Court may send a juvenile to a juvenile detention center; provided that it is limited to when the juvenile cannot be sentenced to custody or an order for custody is obviously improper, and that the detention is necessary. This rule, when compared to the important conditions for being detained for trial by the Code of Criminal Procedure, is obviously more general in nature. Thus, is juvenile detention a compulsory treatment to restrict the juvenile’s freedom before the trial is completed? Or does this legislation have the function to counsel and correct juveniles, thus seeking to prevent them from recommitting crimes? There is ambiguity, and indeed ambiguity in terms of the criminological theory that can be said to underpin both questions. Thus Crime Deterrence Theory states that to lock criminals up has the effect of deterrence and prevention of recidivism; while Age-Graded Informal Social Control Theory states that the correctional institution is an important event in a person’s life, providing the criminal an opportunity to turn a new leaf , to cut off the bad influences of the past and to end recidivism. However, Labeling theory states that the detention of juveniles in legal institutions may generate further serious effects of labeling. This study considered 616 juveniles from one juvenile court in Taiwan from year 2007 to 2008, monitoring their recidivism over two years. The aim was to examine whether there is a significant difference in recidivism rate between the juveniles who were detained in the detention center and those who were not ( after controlling for the juvenile’s personal and family variables and also the variable of the seriousness of the crime). In addition, this study also considered whether the length of time spent in the detention center may have an impact upon recidivism over 2 years. The research found that over the two year period, legal detention may increase the recidivism rate of male juveniles, juveniles who have broken the criminal law, juveniles who have committed theft, and those who have had prior record. However, detention of juveniles who are likely to violate the criminal law and who frequently skip school or run away from home showed no significant influence on the recidivism rate. All in all, detention and the length of detention showed no significant effect on the prevention of juvenile recidivism. And detention may even increase the recidivism rate of certain juveniles. This study has four recommendations. First, the detention system should be promptly reviewed and improved, including that any legal conditions are specified in detail. Juveniles who are likely to violate the criminal law being detained separately from more serious offenders, and before ordering to send a juvenile to a detention center the judge should investigate whether he or she is suitable to undergo detention, and with the time of detention being lessened to 4 months at most. Second, there should be a more diversified array of juvenile detention centers to accommodate the particular needs of juveniles. Aside from being under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Detention House of the Ministry of Justice, there should also be accommodation provided by the Social Welfare Sector. Third, during the stage of investigation and trial, the ruling of the use of Correction Institutions for detention should be lessened. Fourth, there should be greater cooperation between the justice department and other government institutions, to reduce the chances of juveniles entering the legal system where they are prone to be labeled.

參考文獻


張弘明(2007)。論日本少年法之修正(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北。
何明晃(2010)。矛盾與衝突—少年事件處理法安置輔導執行現況之探討。青少年犯罪防治研究期刊,2(1),45-82。
李茂生(1992)。日本少年法制之理論與實踐。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,21(2),97-158。
周愫嫻(2004)。少年犯罪(初版)。臺北:五南。
施慧玲(2004)。論我國兒童人權法制之發展—兼談落實「聯合國兒童權利公約」之社會運動。國立中正大學法學集刊,14,169-204。

被引用紀錄


何明晃(2015)。少年司法介入虞犯處理之研究—以司法院釋字第664號解釋為核心〔博士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614015037
葉施惠(2016)。印尼籍女性家事移工生命歷程及被害經驗〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1005201615101994

延伸閱讀