經常逃學逃家虞犯少年之最適司法處遇-以釋字第664號解釋後的司法處遇個案為研究

ost appropriate judicial treatment for juvenile status offenders who are habitual truant and running away from home –A case study of judicial treatment following J.Y. Interpretation No. 664

楊雅雯(Arwen Yang)

指導教授 ： 黃富源 ； 侯崇文

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/犯罪學研究所/碩士(2011年)

摘要

民國98年7月31日司法院大法官作成釋字第664號解釋，開啟我國虞犯少年司法處遇的新里程。現今的少年司法系統對於經常逃學逃家虞犯少年個案，如具備「本解釋作成前，具有收容必要」特性者，現今少年司法系統對其的責付方式何者最適? 對於經常逃學逃家虞犯少年個案，如具備「本解釋作成前，具有感化教育必要」特性者，現今少年司法系統的保護處分方式何者最適?
本研究分為兩階段，第一階段文獻分析，探究「少年發展理論」、「少年基本權保障與保護」、「國家介入處遇虞犯少年之理論」、「國家親權主義」、「我國少年司法系統之虞犯處遇」以及美國、德國、新加坡對於「有犯罪危險少年」的處遇制度，以提供我國建構經常逃學逃家有犯罪危險少年之最適司法處遇的思考方向。第二階段則以問卷調查，蒐集少年司法系統中提供處遇意見的少調官、決定處遇的少年法官以及執行處遇的少年保護官，其目前「處遇經常逃學逃家有犯罪危險少年」的認知與態度，並依據其處遇經驗及問題，進行綜合歸納分析，以了解現今少年法官與調保官對「經常逃學逃家有犯罪危險少年之最適司法處遇方式」看法。
本研究發現：
一、「經常逃學逃家虞犯少年」之個案具備「漠視規範」、「習慣逃離保護團體」、「使用藥物高風險」、「師長認其不受管教」、「交友複雜」等特性，少年司法人員認為現今的責付方式對此等少年並不恰當。
二、現今少年司法人員可以認同大法官所闡釋「避免對經常逃學逃家虞犯少年施以感化教育」，惟並不全然認同，所有的個案都適合「以安置輔導替代感化教育」。
三、少年司法人員就「大法官對於少事法第3條第2款第3目、第26條、42條之立法目的肯認」，存有高度認同，惟對於大法官就「本解釋前之司法矯治措置內涵之闡釋」，存有高度不認同。由此顯示大法官與實際從事司法矯正輔導之少年法官與少年調保官，對於少年司法處遇之認知方面，存有很大的落差。
四、現今少年司法系統，女性少年司法人員對於「經常逃學逃家虞犯少年之處遇成效不如釋字664號解釋宣告前」，的感受度顯著大於男性者。
五、現今整體調保官比少年法官更切身實際感受，對「經常逃學逃家虞犯少年」執行保護處分的挫敗及無力感。
六、全體少年司法人員對於「經常逃學逃家虞犯少年處遇之因應策略」認同度：教育策略優先 (M=4.13) ＞福利策略 (M=3.96) ＞司法處遇 (M=3.18) ＞不干預策略 (M=2.34)。
七、少年司法人員越認同少事法第26條的程序功能，對於考量將「經常逃學家虞犯少年」責付機構或責付社工的機率就越低。
八、「經常逃學逃家虞犯少年」個案具備「家庭功能障礙並且其與學校人際網絡疏離，向外依附不良友伴」等特性，會考量裁定安置輔導，以調整其生長環境。然，如果少年司法人員不認同「釋字第664號闡釋以安置輔導計替代感化教育」，則現今對此特性少年考量採取「保護管束」的機率越高。

關鍵字

大法官釋字第664號解釋 ； 經常逃學逃家 ； 虞犯少年 ； 少年事件處理法 ； 少年司法處遇 ； 責付 ； 收容 ； 保護處分 ； 感化教育 ； 社區修復處遇 ； 機構修復處遇

並列摘要

On 31 July 2009, the Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan issued J. Y. Interpretation No. 664, which became a milestone of the judicial ruling for juvenile delinquency. Under the current juvenile judicial system, in the case of juvenile with habitual truancy and running away from home where “detention is necessary before the Interpretation is issued”, what is the most appropriate treatment under the current juvenile judicial system? In the case of a juvenile with habitual truancy and running away from home where “rehabilitation education is necessary before the Interpretation is issued”, what is the most appropriate protective disposition under the current juvenile judicial system?
This study is divided into two stages. The first stage is literary analysis. “Theories of Youth Development”, “Security and Protection of Youth Fundamental Rights”, “Theories of National Intervention with Juvenile Delinquency”, “The Parent of The Conutry” and “Treatments on Status Offenders under the Juvenile Judicial System of the Republic of China”. In addition, the juvenile judicial treatment systems in the United States, Germany and Singapore are studied in order to provide directions of consideration for constructing the “Most appropriate Judicial Treatments for Juveniles with Habitual Truancy and Running away from Home”. The second stage is an investigation by questionnaires, collecting the understandings and attitudes about the current treatments on “juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from homewith the risk of crime” from juvenile investigation officer, judges who determine treatments, and juvenile probation officers who enforce the treatments. Their experience and issues are consolidated and analyzed in order to understand the current view of juvenile judges and juvenile investigation and probation officers on “the most appropriate judicial treatment for juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home with the risk of crime”.

This study has the following findings:
1. The cases of “juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home” are often characterized by “neglect of regulations”, “habitual escape from protection groups”, “high risk of drug use”, “teachers think they are not teachable” and “complicated friendship networks”. Juvenile judicial staff believe that the disciplinary method today is not suitable for these youths.
2. Juvenile judicial staff can agree with the justice from the constitutional court that “rehabilitation education should be avoided for juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home”. However, they do not fully agree that “placement counseling in lieu of rehabilitation education” is suitable in all cases.
3. Juvenile judicial staff highly agree that “Justice of the Constitutional Court confirms the legislative objectives of Subsection 3, Section 2, Article 3, Article 26 and Article 42 of the Juvenile Proceeding Act. However, they highly disagree with the “interpretation of the judicial correction measures before the interpretation” by the justice of the constitutional court. This shows that the justices of the constitutional court have a very different view about juvenile judicial treatments with juvenile judges and juvenile investigation and probation officers who actually perform the judicial correction counseling.
4. Under the current juvenile judicial system, female juvenile judicial staff have a stronger feeling than male staff that “the treatments or results of juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home are worse than before J. Y. Interpretation No. 664 was published.”
5. Globally speaking, current juvenile probation officers have a stronger feeling than juvenile judges that they are frustrated and helpless in enforcing protective disposition on “juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home”.
6. Overall, juvenile judicial staff have the following degree of recognition about “responding measures to treatments of juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home”: Educational Strategy in Priority (M=4.13) > Social welfare Strategy (M=3.96) > Judicial Treatment (M=3.18) > Strategy of Non Intervention (M=2.34).
7. The more that juvenile judicial staff agree with the procedural function of Article 26 of the Juvenile Proceeding Act, the less the chances to consider handing “juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home” to dedicated institutions or dedicated social workers.
8. If any case of “juveniles with habitual truancy and running away from home” is accompanied by the feature of “family malfunction, alienation of school interpersonal networks and the external seeking of bad company”, the decision of placement counseling may be considered to adjust the juvenile’s environmental
upbringing. However, if the juvenile judicial staff does not agree to the “placement counseling in lieu of rehabilitation education under J. Y. Interpretation No. 664”, then the changes of juveniles with such a feature being subject to “protective disposition” would be higher today.

並列關鍵字

J.Y.Interpretation No. 664 ； habitual truant and running away from home ； the Juvenile Proceeding Act ； judicial treatment for juvenile status offenders ； place the juvenile in the custody ； place the juvenile in a juvenile detention house ； protective disposition ； order the juvenile to undergo rehabilitative education at a rehabilitative institution ； community-Based rehabilitation, residential rehabilitation

參考文獻

何明晃，2009，《經常逃學而不逃家少年其學校與家庭經驗之研究》，國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。

李茂生，1999，＜新少年事件處理法的立法基本策略-後現代法秩序說＞。《台大法學論叢》，28：141-228。

侯崇文，1996，＜鉅視社會控制、微視社會控制與青少年犯罪＞。《犯罪學期刊》2：15-48。

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」＞。《國立中正大學法學集刊》14：169-204。

許育典，2006，《憲法》。臺北：元照。