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

A Study on Juvenile Justice Intervention in Status Offerders：Focusing on the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.664

何明晃(Ming-Huang Ho)

指導教授 ： 吳信華 ； 鄭瑞隆

國立中正大學/教育學院/犯罪防治學系/博士(2015年)

摘要

司法院大法官釋字664號對我國虞犯少年處遇產生重大影響。

本研究邀請41位處理少年虞犯業務有關之第一線兒少實務工作者進行四場焦點團體訪談，藉以瞭解其等對釋字第664號解釋所面臨之困境與看法。此外，約訪一位當初因此號解釋被釋放之虞犯少年，探究其獨特之生命歷程與經驗；並邀訪曾經參與本號解釋之三位大法官，瞭解此號解釋之意見形成經過；再利用近11年間臺灣高雄少年及家事法院少年調查官所填載之「少年調查（保護）事件統計事項調查表」資料進行統計分析，藉以瞭解影響非行少年再犯之背景因素，並試圖檢視釋字第664號解釋前後非行少年之再犯是否有顯著之差異。

　　虞犯少年在受訪過程中透露收容與感化教育對其產生截然不同之影響，亦獲知在收容與執行感化教育期間，機構並未區分虞犯與非虞犯之現況。從大法官之訪談中瞭解解釋憲法時所關注之重點，與釋字第664號解釋非憑空而來，而當初大法官曾實地訪視少年收容處所所見情狀，的確對結論之形成具有相當程度之影響。另外，透過焦點團體訪談得知釋字第664號解釋的確對第一線實務工作者產生重大衝擊，但不同實務工作者在面對解釋時所採取之因應態度卻截然不同，更呈現出明顯之城鄉差距。至於「少年調查（保護）事件統計事項調查表」資料統計分析則發現，釋字第664號解釋對於非行少年之再犯並無顯著關聯。

　　研究者根據研究發現，分別從行政層面、法律層面與其他三方面提出建言，供有關機關日後制訂政策或增修相關法規之參考。

關鍵字

虞犯少年 ； 司法院釋字第664號解釋 ； 少年司法

並列摘要

The Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.664 (JYI-664) has been having significant impact on the treatment of juvenile status offenders in Taiwan.

This study used multiple methods to collect the opinions and experiences, such as 41 practitioners from many professional fields by administering 4 focus groups in order to comprehend the dilemmas and viewpoints when implementing the determination made by JYI-664. The study also interviewed a juvenile status offender who was released after the enactment of JYI-664 and also discussed on her unique life course and experiences of the interviewee. Besides, I also made in-depth interview with 3 members of the Justices who had participated in the enactment of JYI-664.In addition to the qualitative interviews, I obtained the figures from “Survey form on statistics of juvenile investigation (protection) cases” filled by Juvenile Investigation Officers of Taiwan Kaohsiung Juvenile Court in the past 11 years and analyzed the figures statistically. The analysis was to check if there was any significant difference of recidivism rate existed before and after the Interpretation of JYI-664.

The interviewed status offender indicated that detention and reformatory education had made big different impacts upon her and the interviewee revealed that the juvenile correctional agency had not followed regulation to confine different types of juvenile inmates separately. The interviewed Justices confessed that they made the JYI-664 primarily based upon their on-site visitation to several juvenile correctional facilities and what they had seen and noted made them to propose the draft of JYI-664. Therefore, they insisted that had not made the JYI-664 interpretation arbitrarily and recklessly. The Justices interviewed emphasized that the focus of their concerns on the constitutional interpretation is for the protection of human rights and they proposed the JYI-664 by reviewing a great deal of documents, information and taking references from practical opinions or comments made by correctional professionals and scholars. According to the focus group interviews, it is clear that juvenile justice practitioners had encountered lots of impacts and challenges after the enactment of JYI-664. Nevertheless, apparently, substantial differences existed between urban and rural areas when coping with the requirement from JYI-664.The quantitative statistics of the data from the pretrial investigation, Survey Form on Statistics of Juvenile Investigation (Protection) Cases, showed that there was no significant difference in the probability of recidivism by juvenile delinquency before and after the interpretation indicated by JYI-664.

Based on the above findings, the researcher proposes three recommendations in the dimension of administration, legality and others, as reference for the future formulation of policies or amendment of laws and regulations for the related agencies.

並列關鍵字

The Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.664（JYI-664） ； Juvenile Status Offenders ； Juvenile Justice

參考文獻

吳信華（2001a）。大法官會議議決不受理事由案件選評（一），法令月刊，52（1），30-37。

吳信華（2001b）。大法官會議議決不受理事由案件選評（二），法令月刊，52（7），3-9。

吳信華（2003）。大法官會議議決不受理事由案件選評（三），法令月刊，54（3），4-11。

何明晃（2009b）。司法院大法官釋字第664號解釋論析。刑事法雜誌，52（6），19-58。

何明晃（2009d）。經常逃學而不逃家少年其學校與家庭經驗之研究。青少年犯罪防治研究期刊，1（1），29-82。