我國少年虞犯制度之研究--兼及日本法之比較

Abstract

所謂虞犯少年係指雖未有觸犯刑罰法律之行為，但有強烈犯罪傾向而國家有必要予以保護的少年；然而，少年虞犯行為實際上只是少年成長過程中所出現的偏差或不良行為，是否應由司法介入處理，在世界法制史上始終存有爭論。我國少年事件處理法之立法沿襲自日本戰後的少年法制，兼有刑事法與福利法之兩面，除將少年觸犯刑罰法律行為列入管轄事務外，並將性格不良而有觸犯刑罰法律之虞的少年虞犯事件納入。 2009年7月31日司法院公布之釋字第664號解釋，雖然認為少年事件處理法中有關虞犯少年之規定，係立法者綜合相關因素，為保障、維護12歲以上未滿18歲之虞犯少年健全自我成長所設之保護制度，肯認少年司法處理虞犯之合憲性；惟對於現行少年事件處理法中所採取之有關限制逃學或逃家虞犯少年人身自由限制部分則認為不符合憲法第23條之比例原則而違憲。此號解釋所採取保護處分限制論的觀點，對於逃學或逃家虞犯少年在現行實務上之運作產生深遠的影響，使得以往經移送法院虞犯人數之大宗--逃學或逃家虞犯少年之人數大幅驟減，由先前50%以上之比例驟減為僅餘14.6%，可知影響之大。 因此，本研究試著從分析各時期有關少年虞犯制度的相關規定、實務運作出發，就最近幾年移送各類型之虞犯人數、處遇類型等情形作整理、統計分析與探討，期能了解實務上處理虞犯少年之現況，並檢視釋字第664號解釋後對實務之影響，再以日本少年法有關虞犯制度的運作情形，作為借鏡，試著提出在立法政策上可行之方向，以尋求妥適之修法參考，從而得以建立適合我國少年司法之虞犯制度。

A status offender refers to a juvenile who has yet to commit an act that is in violation of the criminal law but somehow has so strong a tendency to commit such an act that the state has found it necessary to give protection. Nevertheless, status offense is, in fact, simply deviant or unhealthy behavior appearing in the course of a young man’s growth. Always debatable in the history of the world’s legal systems is whether the judicial system should ever get involved. The enactment of the R.O.C. Juvenile Proceeding Act follows the post-war Japanese juvenile laws, which combines both the aspects of criminal law and welfare law. Not only does it have jurisdiction over juveniles who violate criminal laws, but it also exercise authority over status offenders who are likely to commit acts that are in violation of criminal laws. Despite the issuance of J.Y. Interpretation No. 664 by the Judicial Yuan on July 31, 2009, which reasoned that the provisions of the Juvenile Proceeding Act regarding the status offenses are the kind of protective system established by the lawmakers after taking into account all relevant factors to safeguard and preserve a healthy self-growing environment for status offenders between the ages of 12 and 18, thus acknowledging the constitutionality of the judicial intervention in status offense, it finds it unconstitutional for the existing Juvenile Proceeding Act to impose restrictions on the personal freedom of those status offenders who rum away from school or home on the ground of its inconsistency with the principle of proportionality embodied in Article 23 of the Constitution. The view adopted by said interpretation on the limitation of protective measures has worked deeply into the existing practice regarding the status offenders who play truant—sharply reducing the bulk of school- or home-dodging juvenile cases transferring to the courts from 50% in the past to a mere 14.6%. In light of the above, this research sets out to analyze the relevant provisions and practices of the status offender systems in various periods and to collate, compile statistics and prove into the number of various types of status offenders and their treatments, in an attempt to grasp the status quo of the treatment of status offenders in practice. Also subject to review is the influence of J.Y. Interpretation No. 664 on the judicial practice. Furthermore, the operation of the Juvenile Act of Japan is studied so we may borrow its experience in attempting to propose a feasible approach in forming legislative policies to seek appropriate references in amending the existing laws, hence establishing a status offender system that may suit the R.O.C.’s juvenile justice.