Research on Juvenile Jurisdiction, Search and Diversion: Focusing on American Juvenile Jurisprudence

• Main Authors: Huang Ting-Hsuan, 黃鼎軒
• Other Authors: Hsiao Hung-Yi
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/nxrw85

碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 102 === Juvenile Delinquency Act was amended and announced in 29/10/1997. Compared to the old Juvenile Delinquency Act, the new one modified 82 articles and only 8 articles remained, the percentage of amending attain to 95%, which is the biggest growth of Juvenile Delinquency Act since it was announced from 1962. This paper is going to analyze the history of juvenile jurisdiction, school search, and diversion program, trying to introduce the solutions of those problems brought about from the practical operation of juvenile court in American juvenile jurisprudence. At first, this paper introduce American juvenile jurisdiction, comparing to the juvenile jurisdictions in Taiwan; giving suggestions of amending the law related to school searches in Taiwan. Second, during the period in school, students encounter the school searches conducted by the school staffs most frequently. In addressing such issue, by exhausting all the relevant sources of law, it is found that the only applicable regulation is “Precautionary Matters on Schools Enact Instruction of Counseling and Discipline of Students” promulgated by Ministry of Education. It regulates the subject, standard and place of school searches. Therefore, this paper analyzes the cases of school search in United States juvenile justice, comparing to the “Precautionary Matters” mentioned above; giving suggestions of amending the law related to school searches in Taiwan. In addition, this paper focuses on the inquiries of the methodology on the application of “Voluntariness” and “Third Party Consent Searches” to “Juvenile Delinquency Act” by taking the example of the Juvenile Justice in United States. This paper gives suggestions on such application and makes concluding remarks. Lastly, compared to the diversion programs in America and the referral in Taiwan, trying to find the solution between the diversion, which keeps the juvenile from entering to courts, and the referral, means keep the juvenile from courts after entering. To sum up, this paper argues that it should set up a “Diversion Committee’’ before juvenile entering to the court, then give suggestions in setting, members, process of diversion committee, and make conclusions of the paper.