| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 103 === The release of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 664 triggered disputes over whether status offenders should be under juvenile jurisdiction or not. It also led to amendment of Juvenile Delinquency Act with respect to status offenders in 2013. The draft amendment reduced the scope of status offenders, and set administrative measures as priorities when it comes to status offenders. Only when the administrative measures fail will the status offenders be sent to juvenile court. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the appropriateness of the reform concerning status offenders in juvenile justice.
To analyze appropriateness of the draft amendment, legitimacy of government intervention in juvenile status offenses has to be sought first, and then the options for intervention may be considered. The thesis holds that one of the most important elements of childhood is endogeneity, which set distinctions between children and adults. A legal right to protect endogeneity is the right to develop soundly. The country has the duty and right to protect that right of children and offers an appropriate environment to children to grow up. Therefore, this thesis further holds that the proper moment the country shall intervene to protect a juvenile is when he or she is labeled as a delinquent or wayward child by government offices, because this is the time when a child begins to suffer from the labeling and stigmatization.
By referring to the reform of juvenile justice in the United States within the past century, and the results of the diversion and deinstitutionalization of juvenile status offenses owing to the reform, this thesis considers that enacting the policy of diversion and deinstitutionalization of status offenders cannot really solve the labeling problem of status offenders and juvenile crimes. The labeling and stigmatization inherent in a juvenile''s contact with the juvenile court might also occur in community-based treatment programs.
Accordingly, this thesis holds that the proper solution is to mitigate the negative influence on juvenile status offenders. Considering the essences of juvenile status offenses, which are similar to juvenile delinquency, and the possibilities for juvenile status offenders to commit crimes, juvenile status offenses should remain subject to juvenile jurisdiction.
In summary, this thesis holds that the draft amendment correctly reflect the essences of juvenile status offenses by reducing types of status offenders, but the policy that divert status offenders to community-based treatment programs first without contacting juvenile court, might not meet the purpose of juvenile protection.
|
|---|
