少年虞犯法理之省思與建構

Rethinking the Jurisdiction of Status Offenses

黃義成(Yi-Chen Huang)

《臺大法學論叢》 42卷3期 (2013/09) Pp. 631-714

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2013.42.03.04

摘要

少年虞犯之處理程序究應偏向少年犯罪之處理程序或傾向於教育及福利措施？我國現行少年事件處理法基於社會防衛思想，採取之立法政策較偏向少年犯罪之處理程序，程序法理偏向刑事程序法理，少年虞犯與觸法少年之審理程序並無不同，虞犯少年審理之結果會受到剝奪人身自由之處分。惟從法院處理少年虞犯之法理、功能及結果觀察，少年法院並非是一個適合處理少年虞犯之機構。我國於少年事件處理法立法之初雖曾論辯少年虞犯是否應由法院處理之議題，惟基於少年犯罪問題嚴重等理由而採取由法院處理之立法政策，經歷數次修法亦採取同一立法政策。惟基於社會防衛思想將虞犯少年作為社會防衛之客體，而非受教育及福利之主體，此項立法政策應有修正之必要。又縱然經辯論結果欲採取由法院審理之立法政策，然少年法院審理少年虞犯之程序仍應詳為規劃，以保障虞犯少年之程序權利。

關鍵字

少年 ； 虞犯 ； 國家親權 ； 父母權威 ； 社會防衛 ； 教育 ； 福利 ； 程序權

並列摘要

Before our present juvenile law was enacted, there was an intense debate between those who advocated for court trials for status offenders, and those who thought such cases should be referred to educational or social institutions. The policy adopted was the court approach, and, even after several revisions, the law remains basically the same today. This article argues that it is bad policy to subject status offenders to a court process, because this means treating status offenses and delinquencies as if they were on the same level, which can lead to incarceration for status offences even though they are not crimes. Far better to regard status offenders as reformable young persons, educating and rehabilitating them in the hope of their becoming useful members of society. Even if the present policy were to be upheld, there is need to establish a better process to protect the procedural rights of those accused.

並列關鍵字

juvenile ； status offense ； parens patriae ； rights of parents ； social defense ； education ； welfare ； process rights

參考文獻

湯德宗（2009）。〈大法官釋字第664 號解釋評析〉，《法令月刊》，60 卷12 期，頁4-26。（Dennis Te-Chung Tang [2009]. Commentary on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 664. Law Monthly, 60[12], 4-26.）

Board of Directors of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1978). Jurisdiction over status offenses should be removed from the juvenile court: A policy statement. In R. Allinson (Ed.), Status offenders and the juvenile justice system (pp. 1-5). Hackensack: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. doi: 10.1177/001112877502100201

Chesney-Lind, M. (1978). Judicial paternalism and the female status offender – training women to know their place. In R. Allinson (Ed.), Status offenders and the juvenile justice system (pp. 110-119). Hackensack: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. doi:10.1177/001112877702300203

Ketcham, O. W. (1978). Why jurisdiction over status offenders should be eliminated from juvenile courts. In R. Allinson (Ed.), Status offenders and the juvenile justice system (pp. 33-50). Hackensack: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Kim, J. J. (2010). Left behind: The paternalistic treatment of status offenders within the juvenile justice system. Washington University Law Review, 87, 843-867.