未成年人罪错行为处置规律研究
|
摘要
对未成年人司法中的核心问题即如何处置未成年人罪错行为,一直以来存在不同声音甚至是截然相反的主张。归根到底,根源于对未成年人司法的特殊性和未成年人罪错行为处置规律缺乏深入的认识。本文从历史发展、科学依据、司法实践三个角度总结与提炼了处置未成年人罪错行为的规律,建议应按照注重保护、强调恢复、积极预防这一具有逻辑递进性的层次,立足我国国情,建立具有中国特色的未成年人罪错行为分级干预制度。
The are different voices or even completely opposite opinions on the core issue of juvenile justice, that is, how to deal with juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings. By analyzing the nature of this topic, the problem is rooted in the lack of deep understanding of the particularity of juvenile justice and the correction rules of juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings. This article, from the perspectives of historical development, scientific basis and judicial practice, summarizes the correction rules of juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings and suggests that we should establish a hierarchical intervention system for juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings with Chinese characteristics based on China's specific conditions in terms of stressing protection, emphasizing recovery and active prevention.
The are different voices or even completely opposite opinions on the core issue of juvenile justice, that is, how to deal with juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings. By analyzing the nature of this topic, the problem is rooted in the lack of deep understanding of the particularity of juvenile justice and the correction rules of juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings. This article, from the perspectives of historical development, scientific basis and judicial practice, summarizes the correction rules of juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings and suggests that we should establish a hierarchical intervention system for juvenile delinquency and wrongdoings with Chinese characteristics based on China's specific conditions in terms of stressing protection, emphasizing recovery and active prevention.
引文
[1]关于少年司法模式的研究,参见侯东亮:《少年司法模式研究》,法律出版社2014年版。
[2]2015年3月24日下午,中共中央政治局就深化司法体制改革、保证司法公正进行第二十一次集体学习。中共中央总书记习近平在主持学习时强调,司法体制改革必须同我国根本政治制度、基本政治制度和经济社会发展水平相适应,保持我们自己的特色和优势。我们要借鉴国外法治有益成果,但不能照搬照抄国外司法制度。完善司法制度、深化司法体制改革,要遵循司法活动的客观规律。
[3]“21世纪的少年法院呈现着一种令人困惑的反差:即一方面少年司法机构在全美乃至世界被广泛设立;另一方面,关于其独特功能的广为接受的正当化理论却是缺乏的。……就我的整个职业生涯而言,少年司法对少年越轨的管辖一直是一种寻求相关理论的实践,一种对理论家们和实践者们的挑战,即为少年法院提供一套完善的法律理论,并将该理论不断应用于应对现代少年司法实践中涌现出来的纷繁的政策问题。为少年违法犯罪者设立一个单独的法院,其根本理由何在?”由此可见,在美国联邦最高法院于1967年通过高尔特判例抛弃政府福利和儿童期依赖性理论后,如今仍未获得任何基本法律原则之实体框架的恢复。参见[美]富兰克林·E·齐姆林:《美国少年司法》,高维俭译,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,本书简介第1页。
[4]通常来说,司法规律是司法机关适用法律处理案件活动背后固有的客观必然性。从内涵来看,司法规律包括司法活动的中立、专业、权威、公开、独立、公正等内容;从外延来看,司法规律在民事诉讼、刑事诉讼和行政诉讼中的具体表现既有共同之处,也存有差异。2015年3月24日,习近平总书记在主持中共中央政治局第二十一次集体学习时强调,完善司法制度、深化司法体制改革,要遵循司法活动的客观规律,体现权责统一、权力制约、公开公正、尊重程序的要求。其中,“权责统一、权力制约、公开公正、尊重程序”,也是对司法规律更高层次认识的一种概括。
[5]中共中央文献研究室编:《毛泽东年谱(一九四九—一九七六)第4卷》,中央文献出版社2013年版,第316页。
[6] Robert W. Taylor&Eric J. Fritsch, Juvenile Justice:Policies, Programs, and Practices(Fourth Edition), McGraw-Hill Educations, 2014, pp.23-35; Karen M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, John Paul Wright, Juvenile Justice(Sixth Edition), Wadsworth, 2013, pp.29-60; Sanford J. Fox, Juvenile Justice Reform:An Historical Perspective, Stanford Law Review, Vol.22, No.8, 1970, pp. 1187-1239;Elizabeth S. Scott&Thomas Grisso, The Evolution of Adolescence:A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice Reform, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.88, No.1, 1998,pp.137-189; ThucH.Nguyen,Juvenile Justice:Searching for a Flexible Alternative to the Strict and Over-inclusive Transfer System for Serious Juvenile Offenders, Southern California Law Review,Vol.90, No.2, 2017, pp.343-382; Barry C. Feld, A Century of Juvenile Justice:A Work inProgress or a Revolution That Failed, Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol.34, No.2, 2007, pp. 189-256; Conor Walsh, The(Unfinished)Growth of the Juvenile Justice System, New England Law Review, Vol.50,No.2, 2016, pp.237-268.
[7] Robert Martinson, What Works?—Questions and Answers about Prison Reform, Public Interest,Vol.35, 1974, p.48.
[8]Richard E. Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws:AnEffective Deterrent to JuvenileDelinquency,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles 1/ojjdp/220595.pdf,2019年2月20日访问。
[9]Mark R. Fondacaro, Stephen Koppel, Megan J. O'Toole, Joanne Crain, The Rebirth of Rehabilitation in Juvenileand Criminal Justice:New Wine in New Bottles, Ohio Northern University Law Review,Vol.41, 2015, pp.697-730; Amanda Kopnick, Protecting Our Most Valuable Assets:A Proposal to Return to a Rehabilitative Approach toJuvenile Justice, University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol.5, No.2, 2011, pp.105-120.
[10]未成年人司法发展历史中对常识的倚重,参见Kim Taylor Thompson,States of Minds/States of Development Symposium:Children, Crime, and Consequences:Juvenile Justice in America, Stanford Law and Policy Review, Vol. 14, No. 1,2003, pp. 143-146.
[11]有关常识的主观性、主观性以及局限性论述参见Terry A. Maroney,Emotional Common Sense as Constitutional Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol.62, No.3, 2009, pp.877-902.
[12]详细论述参见Laurence Steinberg and Robert G. Schwartz, Developmental Psychology Goes to Court,in Thomas Grisso and Robert G. Schwartz eds., Youth on Trial:A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice, The University of Chicago Press, 2000, p.22.
[13]Nicholas Hobbs and Sally Robinson, Adolescent Development and Public Policy, American Psychologist, Vol.37, No.2, 1982, pp. 219-220; Gary B. Melton, Developmental Psychology and the Law:The State of theArt, Journal of Family Law, Vol.22, No.1, 1983-1984, p.458.
[14]E.Scott,T. Grisso,M. Levick&L. Steinberg, Juvenile Sentencing Reform in a Constitutional Framework, Temple Law Review, Vol.88, 2016, pp.675-715; K. Silva, J.Patrianakos, J. Chein,&L. Steinberg, Joint Effects of Peer Pressure and Fatigue on Risk and Reward Processing in Adolescence, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.46, No.9, 2017, pp.1878-1890; N.Duell,L. Steinberg, J. Chein, S. Al-Hassan, D. Bacchini, L. Chang, Interaction of Reward Seeking and Self-regulation in the Prediction of Risk Taking:A Cross-National Test of the Dual Systems Model, Developmental Psychology, Vol.52, No.10, 2016, pp.1593-1605; A. Fine, L. Steinberg,P. Frick,&E. Cauffman, Self-Control Assessments and Implications for Predicting Adolescent Offending, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.45, 701-712; E.Shulman, K.Harden, J.Chein,&L. Steinberg,The Development of Impulse Control and Sensation-Seeking in Adolescence:Independent or Interdependent Processes, Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol.26, 2016,pp.37-44.
[15] L. P. Spear, Adolescent Brian Development and Animal Models, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,Vol. 1021,No. 1,2004, pp.23-24.
[16]相关的研究结论参见B. J. Casey et al.,The Adolescent Brian,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,Vol. 1124, No. 1,2008, p.113.
[17] Laurence Steinberg&Elizabeth S. Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence:Developmental Immaturity,Diminished Responsibility and the Juvenile Death Penalty, American Psychologist, Vol.58, No. 12, 2003, pp.1011-1017; Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, Jennifer Woolard, Sandra Graham, Marie Banich, Are Adolescents Less Mature Than Adults?:Minors'Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA “flip-flop”,American Psychologist, Vol.64, No.7,2009, pp.583-594.
[18] Ann Maclean Massie, Suicide on Campus:The Appropriate Legal Responsibility of College Personnel,Social Science Electronic Publishing, Vol.91, No.3, 2008,pp.660-661.
[19]李艳玮、李燕芳:《儿童青少年认知能力发展与脑发育》,载《心理科学进展》2010年第11期。“结构的改变既有宏观层面的,也有微观层面的。从宏观层面上讲,因可塑性而引起的大脑结构的改变包括脑重的变化、皮层厚度的变化、不同脑区沟回面积的改变等;从微观层面上讲,因可塑性而引起的大脑结构的改变包括树突长度的增加、树突棘密度的改变、神经元数量的改变以及大脑皮层新陈代谢的变化等。而功能的重组则在分子层面、细胞层面、皮层地图层面以及神经网络等层面都有可能发生。”参见王亚鹏、董奇:《脑的可塑性研究:现状与进展》,载《北京师范大学学报(社会科学版)》2007年第3期。英文文献有Russell A. Poldrack, Imaging Brain Plasticity:Conceptual and Methodological Issues—A Theoretical Review, NeuroImage, 2000, Vol.12, No.1,pp.1-13; Martha Constantine-Paton, The Plastic Brain, Neurobiology of Disease, 2000, Vol.7, No.5,pp.515-519; Alvaro Pascual-Leone, The Plastic Human Brain Cortex, Annual Review of Neuroscience,2005, Vol.28, No.28, pp.377-401.
[20] Linda Spear, The Behavioral Neuroscience of Adolescence, W. W. Norton&Company, 2009;Elizabeth R Sowell, Doris A Trauner, Anthony Gamst, Terry L Jernigan, Development of Cortical and Subcortical Brain Structures in Childhood and Adolescence:A Structural MRI Study, Developmental Medicine&Child Neurology, Vol.44, No.1, 2002, pp.4-16; Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, Court Review, Vol. 50, No.2, 2014, pp.70-77.
[21] Barry C. Feld, The Youth Discount:Old Enough to Do theCrime, Too Young to Do the Time, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol.11, No.1, 2013, pp.107-148.
[22]Terrie E. Moffitt, Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior:A Developmental Taxonomy, Psychological Review, Vol. 100, No.4, 1993, p.675.
[23]研究表明,大部分涉罪未成年人不会成长为终身犯罪者,即使有过严重犯罪行为的,也很有可能在成年后不再有类似行为。尽管得出了这样的结论,但是对于哪一小部分会成长为终身犯罪者,目前并没有科学办法预测。因此,在无法识别的情况下,应当做出价值选择,尊重大部分未成年人的正常成长规律,避免适用严厉的惩罚措施。参见Emily C. Keller,Constitutional Sentences for Juveniles Convicted of FelonyMurder in the Wake of Rope, Graham,&JDB, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, Vol.11,No.2, 2012, p.315.研究发现,未成年人的某些犯罪行为在青春中、后期达到峰值,之后下降,这种倒U形的曲线模式被称为“年龄—犯罪曲线”。参见Laurence Steinberg, The Influence of Neuroscience on US Supreme Court Decisions about Adolescents'Criminal Culpability,Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2013, Vol.14, No.7, p.515.其中三种犯罪行为的曲线如下图所示:■此外,多个国家和不同时间的研究都发现了“年龄—犯罪曲线”。参见AlexR. Piquero,Taking Stock of Developmental Trajectories of Criminal Activity over the Life Course,in AkivaM. Liberman ed., The Long View of Crime:A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research,Springer, 2008, pp.23 and 49.
[24] Elizabeth Scott, Thomas Grisso, Marsha Levick, LaurenceSteinberg, Juvenile Sentencing Reform in aConstitutional Framework, Temple Law Review, Vol.88, 2016, p.687.“认知神经科学以及有关大脑可塑性的研究表明,大脑正是因为受经验的影响才产生可塑性的变化,因而经验在大脑可塑性方面起着十分重要的作用。就经验本身而言,其对大脑的影响有时是积极的,有时则是消极的。因而要大量提供和创设有利于大脑潜能开发的适宜环境,同时要尽量避免诸如经验剥夺以及忽视等对个体发展不利的经验对大脑的消极影响。”参见王亚鹏、董奇:《脑的可塑性研究及其对教育的启示》,载《珠算与珠心算》2012年第6期。
[25]“有关大脑可塑性的研究表明,在个体发展的生命全程,大脑都具有一定的可塑性。在个体发展的不同阶段,大脑的可塑性并不一样。在敏感期,大脑的可塑性较强,进行教育或干预的效果更佳;相反,如果在敏感期大脑不能得到足够的开发,其功能就不能得到充分的开发,甚至会造成一些难以估量的后果。”参见前引[24],王亚鹏、董奇文。
[26] Marsha Levick, Jessica Feierman, Sharon Messenheimer Kelley, Naomi E. S. Goldstein, The Eighth Amendment Evolves:Defining Cruel and Unusual Punishment Through the Lens of Childhood and Adolescence, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, Vol.12, No.3, 2012,pp.285-321.
[27]宋英辉教授主持的《未成年人保护与犯罪预防问题研究》课题组对Y、S、G和SH四省399名未成年人服刑人员进行了问卷调查。在382个有效数据中,有372名未成年犯在入所服刑前具有不良行为或严重不良行为,占97.38%。另外,从媒体报道的个案来看,各地发生的未成年人严重暴力案件,之前都有不良行为和违法行为,且没有得到及时有效干预。如四川自贡13岁儿童有着抽烟、喝酒、打架、上网等行为,后掐死奶奶,一年后又杀死太婆;广西13岁少年辍学后多次离家出走在外流浪谋生,从乞讨、偷窃等行为,演变为杀害三姐弟;甘肃一名未成年人自幼无人照顾,浪迹于社会,跟其他不良青少年混在一起,后因偷抢财物杀一人、重伤一人;广东一起未成年人强奸杀人案中,该未成年人13岁以前在原籍曾多次打架斗殴,后重伤他人、强奸杀人;等等。
[28]宋英辉教授主持的《未成年人保护与犯罪预防问题研究》课题组对Y、S、G和SH四省399名未成年人服刑人员进行问卷调查显示,在380个有效数据中,学校或家长对不良行为或严重不良行为没有采取任何应对措施的有63例,占16.58%,采取应对措施的有317例,占83.42%。学校或家长的应对措施包括批评教育(267例,占70.26%)、劝退(50名,占13.16%),并无专业干预。另外,未成年人具有不良行为或严重不良行为时,警察介入的有169例。其中,警察只是简单批评教育或者没有批评教育、通知家长带回或直接放走而没有进行专业干预和后续跟进的达143例,占84.61%。
[29] Howard T. Matthews, Status Offenders:Our Children's Constitutional Rights Versus What's Right for Them, Southern University Law Review, Vol.27, No.2, 2000, p.201; Julie J. Kim, Left Behind:The Paternalistic Treatment of Status Offenders Within the Juvenile Justice System, Exegesis&Argument,Vol.15, No.3, 2009, pp.848-851; Tracy J. Simmons, Mandatory Mediation:A Better Way to Address Status Offenses, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 21, No.3, 2006, pp. 1043-1072; Soma R.Kedia, Creating an Adolescent Criminal Class:Juvenile Court Jurisdiction over Status Offenders,Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, Vol.5, No.1, 2006, pp.543-550; Claire Shubik, Jessica Kendall, Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Laws:Considerations for Congressional Review of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Family Court Review, Vol.45, No.3, 2007, pp.384-398.
[30]在日本,虞犯行为主要包括:(1)具有不服从监护人正当保护的习性;(2)无正当理由而对家庭没有亲近感;(3)与有犯罪倾向的人或不道德的人交往,出入不健康场所;(4)具有损害自己或他人道德修养的习性。在我国台湾地区,虞犯行为主要包括:(1)经常与有犯罪习性之人交往者;(2)经常出入少年不当进入之场所者;(3)经常逃学逃家者:(4)参加不良组织者;(5)无正当理由携带刀械者;(6)有违警习性或经常于深夜在外游荡者;(7)吸食或施打烟毒以外之麻醉或迷幻物品者。
[31]郭豫珍:《“虞犯”概念在国际少年司法理念上的定位与检讨》,载《法学专刊》2005年50卷第4期。
[32]挪威《儿童福利法》第24条至第25条,来源于孙云晓、张美英编:《当代未成年人法律译丛挪威卷》,中国检察出版社2006年版,第146-147页。
[33] Karen M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, John Paul Warght, Juvenile Justice, Six Edition, Wadsworth,2013, pp.333-366; Robert W. Taylor,Eric J. Fritsch, Juvenile Justice:Policies,Programs and Practices,Forth Edition, McGraw-Hill Education, 2014, pp.295-330.
[34] Robert E. Shepherd, Critical to Transition for Incarcerated Youths, Criminal Justice, Vol.20, 2005,pp.57-59; Jerrod Thompson-Hicks, Re-entry and the Juvenile Defender, John Marshall Law Journal,Vol.8, 2015, pp.567-596.
[35] Development Services Group, Inc., Juvenile Reentry, Literature Review, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,2017, https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Aftercare.pdf, 2019年2月20日访问。
[36] Lurigio, Arthur, Gad Bensinger, S. Rae Thompson, Kristin Elling, Donna Poucis, Jill Selvaggio,MelissaSpooner, A Process and Outcome Evaluation of Project BUILD:Years 5 and 6, Unpublished Report, Loyola University, 2000.
[37]Trupin, Eric J., Suzanne E. U. Kerns, Sarah Cusworth Walker, Megan T. DeRobertis, and David G.Stewart, Family Integrated Transitions:A Promising Program for Juvenile Offenderswith CoOccurring Disorders, Journal of Child&Adolescent Substance Abuse, Vol.20, 2011, pp.421-436.
[38]《国务院办公厅转发国家教育委员会、公安部、共青团中央<关于办好工读学校几点意见的通知>》(1987年)。
[39]《刑法》第17条第4款规定,因不满16周岁不予刑事处罚的,责令他的家长或者监护人加以管教;在必要的时候,也可以由政府收容教养。
[2]2015年3月24日下午,中共中央政治局就深化司法体制改革、保证司法公正进行第二十一次集体学习。中共中央总书记习近平在主持学习时强调,司法体制改革必须同我国根本政治制度、基本政治制度和经济社会发展水平相适应,保持我们自己的特色和优势。我们要借鉴国外法治有益成果,但不能照搬照抄国外司法制度。完善司法制度、深化司法体制改革,要遵循司法活动的客观规律。
[3]“21世纪的少年法院呈现着一种令人困惑的反差:即一方面少年司法机构在全美乃至世界被广泛设立;另一方面,关于其独特功能的广为接受的正当化理论却是缺乏的。……就我的整个职业生涯而言,少年司法对少年越轨的管辖一直是一种寻求相关理论的实践,一种对理论家们和实践者们的挑战,即为少年法院提供一套完善的法律理论,并将该理论不断应用于应对现代少年司法实践中涌现出来的纷繁的政策问题。为少年违法犯罪者设立一个单独的法院,其根本理由何在?”由此可见,在美国联邦最高法院于1967年通过高尔特判例抛弃政府福利和儿童期依赖性理论后,如今仍未获得任何基本法律原则之实体框架的恢复。参见[美]富兰克林·E·齐姆林:《美国少年司法》,高维俭译,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,本书简介第1页。
[4]通常来说,司法规律是司法机关适用法律处理案件活动背后固有的客观必然性。从内涵来看,司法规律包括司法活动的中立、专业、权威、公开、独立、公正等内容;从外延来看,司法规律在民事诉讼、刑事诉讼和行政诉讼中的具体表现既有共同之处,也存有差异。2015年3月24日,习近平总书记在主持中共中央政治局第二十一次集体学习时强调,完善司法制度、深化司法体制改革,要遵循司法活动的客观规律,体现权责统一、权力制约、公开公正、尊重程序的要求。其中,“权责统一、权力制约、公开公正、尊重程序”,也是对司法规律更高层次认识的一种概括。
[5]中共中央文献研究室编:《毛泽东年谱(一九四九—一九七六)第4卷》,中央文献出版社2013年版,第316页。
[6] Robert W. Taylor&Eric J. Fritsch, Juvenile Justice:Policies, Programs, and Practices(Fourth Edition), McGraw-Hill Educations, 2014, pp.23-35; Karen M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, John Paul Wright, Juvenile Justice(Sixth Edition), Wadsworth, 2013, pp.29-60; Sanford J. Fox, Juvenile Justice Reform:An Historical Perspective, Stanford Law Review, Vol.22, No.8, 1970, pp. 1187-1239;Elizabeth S. Scott&Thomas Grisso, The Evolution of Adolescence:A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice Reform, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.88, No.1, 1998,pp.137-189; ThucH.Nguyen,Juvenile Justice:Searching for a Flexible Alternative to the Strict and Over-inclusive Transfer System for Serious Juvenile Offenders, Southern California Law Review,Vol.90, No.2, 2017, pp.343-382; Barry C. Feld, A Century of Juvenile Justice:A Work inProgress or a Revolution That Failed, Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol.34, No.2, 2007, pp. 189-256; Conor Walsh, The(Unfinished)Growth of the Juvenile Justice System, New England Law Review, Vol.50,No.2, 2016, pp.237-268.
[7] Robert Martinson, What Works?—Questions and Answers about Prison Reform, Public Interest,Vol.35, 1974, p.48.
[8]Richard E. Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws:AnEffective Deterrent to JuvenileDelinquency,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles 1/ojjdp/220595.pdf,2019年2月20日访问。
[9]Mark R. Fondacaro, Stephen Koppel, Megan J. O'Toole, Joanne Crain, The Rebirth of Rehabilitation in Juvenileand Criminal Justice:New Wine in New Bottles, Ohio Northern University Law Review,Vol.41, 2015, pp.697-730; Amanda Kopnick, Protecting Our Most Valuable Assets:A Proposal to Return to a Rehabilitative Approach toJuvenile Justice, University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol.5, No.2, 2011, pp.105-120.
[10]未成年人司法发展历史中对常识的倚重,参见Kim Taylor Thompson,States of Minds/States of Development Symposium:Children, Crime, and Consequences:Juvenile Justice in America, Stanford Law and Policy Review, Vol. 14, No. 1,2003, pp. 143-146.
[11]有关常识的主观性、主观性以及局限性论述参见Terry A. Maroney,Emotional Common Sense as Constitutional Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol.62, No.3, 2009, pp.877-902.
[12]详细论述参见Laurence Steinberg and Robert G. Schwartz, Developmental Psychology Goes to Court,in Thomas Grisso and Robert G. Schwartz eds., Youth on Trial:A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice, The University of Chicago Press, 2000, p.22.
[13]Nicholas Hobbs and Sally Robinson, Adolescent Development and Public Policy, American Psychologist, Vol.37, No.2, 1982, pp. 219-220; Gary B. Melton, Developmental Psychology and the Law:The State of theArt, Journal of Family Law, Vol.22, No.1, 1983-1984, p.458.
[14]E.Scott,T. Grisso,M. Levick&L. Steinberg, Juvenile Sentencing Reform in a Constitutional Framework, Temple Law Review, Vol.88, 2016, pp.675-715; K. Silva, J.Patrianakos, J. Chein,&L. Steinberg, Joint Effects of Peer Pressure and Fatigue on Risk and Reward Processing in Adolescence, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.46, No.9, 2017, pp.1878-1890; N.Duell,L. Steinberg, J. Chein, S. Al-Hassan, D. Bacchini, L. Chang, Interaction of Reward Seeking and Self-regulation in the Prediction of Risk Taking:A Cross-National Test of the Dual Systems Model, Developmental Psychology, Vol.52, No.10, 2016, pp.1593-1605; A. Fine, L. Steinberg,P. Frick,&E. Cauffman, Self-Control Assessments and Implications for Predicting Adolescent Offending, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.45, 701-712; E.Shulman, K.Harden, J.Chein,&L. Steinberg,The Development of Impulse Control and Sensation-Seeking in Adolescence:Independent or Interdependent Processes, Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol.26, 2016,pp.37-44.
[15] L. P. Spear, Adolescent Brian Development and Animal Models, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,Vol. 1021,No. 1,2004, pp.23-24.
[16]相关的研究结论参见B. J. Casey et al.,The Adolescent Brian,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,Vol. 1124, No. 1,2008, p.113.
[17] Laurence Steinberg&Elizabeth S. Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence:Developmental Immaturity,Diminished Responsibility and the Juvenile Death Penalty, American Psychologist, Vol.58, No. 12, 2003, pp.1011-1017; Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, Jennifer Woolard, Sandra Graham, Marie Banich, Are Adolescents Less Mature Than Adults?:Minors'Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA “flip-flop”,American Psychologist, Vol.64, No.7,2009, pp.583-594.
[18] Ann Maclean Massie, Suicide on Campus:The Appropriate Legal Responsibility of College Personnel,Social Science Electronic Publishing, Vol.91, No.3, 2008,pp.660-661.
[19]李艳玮、李燕芳:《儿童青少年认知能力发展与脑发育》,载《心理科学进展》2010年第11期。“结构的改变既有宏观层面的,也有微观层面的。从宏观层面上讲,因可塑性而引起的大脑结构的改变包括脑重的变化、皮层厚度的变化、不同脑区沟回面积的改变等;从微观层面上讲,因可塑性而引起的大脑结构的改变包括树突长度的增加、树突棘密度的改变、神经元数量的改变以及大脑皮层新陈代谢的变化等。而功能的重组则在分子层面、细胞层面、皮层地图层面以及神经网络等层面都有可能发生。”参见王亚鹏、董奇:《脑的可塑性研究:现状与进展》,载《北京师范大学学报(社会科学版)》2007年第3期。英文文献有Russell A. Poldrack, Imaging Brain Plasticity:Conceptual and Methodological Issues—A Theoretical Review, NeuroImage, 2000, Vol.12, No.1,pp.1-13; Martha Constantine-Paton, The Plastic Brain, Neurobiology of Disease, 2000, Vol.7, No.5,pp.515-519; Alvaro Pascual-Leone, The Plastic Human Brain Cortex, Annual Review of Neuroscience,2005, Vol.28, No.28, pp.377-401.
[20] Linda Spear, The Behavioral Neuroscience of Adolescence, W. W. Norton&Company, 2009;Elizabeth R Sowell, Doris A Trauner, Anthony Gamst, Terry L Jernigan, Development of Cortical and Subcortical Brain Structures in Childhood and Adolescence:A Structural MRI Study, Developmental Medicine&Child Neurology, Vol.44, No.1, 2002, pp.4-16; Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, Court Review, Vol. 50, No.2, 2014, pp.70-77.
[21] Barry C. Feld, The Youth Discount:Old Enough to Do theCrime, Too Young to Do the Time, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol.11, No.1, 2013, pp.107-148.
[22]Terrie E. Moffitt, Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior:A Developmental Taxonomy, Psychological Review, Vol. 100, No.4, 1993, p.675.
[23]研究表明,大部分涉罪未成年人不会成长为终身犯罪者,即使有过严重犯罪行为的,也很有可能在成年后不再有类似行为。尽管得出了这样的结论,但是对于哪一小部分会成长为终身犯罪者,目前并没有科学办法预测。因此,在无法识别的情况下,应当做出价值选择,尊重大部分未成年人的正常成长规律,避免适用严厉的惩罚措施。参见Emily C. Keller,Constitutional Sentences for Juveniles Convicted of FelonyMurder in the Wake of Rope, Graham,&JDB, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, Vol.11,No.2, 2012, p.315.研究发现,未成年人的某些犯罪行为在青春中、后期达到峰值,之后下降,这种倒U形的曲线模式被称为“年龄—犯罪曲线”。参见Laurence Steinberg, The Influence of Neuroscience on US Supreme Court Decisions about Adolescents'Criminal Culpability,Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2013, Vol.14, No.7, p.515.其中三种犯罪行为的曲线如下图所示:■此外,多个国家和不同时间的研究都发现了“年龄—犯罪曲线”。参见AlexR. Piquero,Taking Stock of Developmental Trajectories of Criminal Activity over the Life Course,in AkivaM. Liberman ed., The Long View of Crime:A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research,Springer, 2008, pp.23 and 49.
[24] Elizabeth Scott, Thomas Grisso, Marsha Levick, LaurenceSteinberg, Juvenile Sentencing Reform in aConstitutional Framework, Temple Law Review, Vol.88, 2016, p.687.“认知神经科学以及有关大脑可塑性的研究表明,大脑正是因为受经验的影响才产生可塑性的变化,因而经验在大脑可塑性方面起着十分重要的作用。就经验本身而言,其对大脑的影响有时是积极的,有时则是消极的。因而要大量提供和创设有利于大脑潜能开发的适宜环境,同时要尽量避免诸如经验剥夺以及忽视等对个体发展不利的经验对大脑的消极影响。”参见王亚鹏、董奇:《脑的可塑性研究及其对教育的启示》,载《珠算与珠心算》2012年第6期。
[25]“有关大脑可塑性的研究表明,在个体发展的生命全程,大脑都具有一定的可塑性。在个体发展的不同阶段,大脑的可塑性并不一样。在敏感期,大脑的可塑性较强,进行教育或干预的效果更佳;相反,如果在敏感期大脑不能得到足够的开发,其功能就不能得到充分的开发,甚至会造成一些难以估量的后果。”参见前引[24],王亚鹏、董奇文。
[26] Marsha Levick, Jessica Feierman, Sharon Messenheimer Kelley, Naomi E. S. Goldstein, The Eighth Amendment Evolves:Defining Cruel and Unusual Punishment Through the Lens of Childhood and Adolescence, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, Vol.12, No.3, 2012,pp.285-321.
[27]宋英辉教授主持的《未成年人保护与犯罪预防问题研究》课题组对Y、S、G和SH四省399名未成年人服刑人员进行了问卷调查。在382个有效数据中,有372名未成年犯在入所服刑前具有不良行为或严重不良行为,占97.38%。另外,从媒体报道的个案来看,各地发生的未成年人严重暴力案件,之前都有不良行为和违法行为,且没有得到及时有效干预。如四川自贡13岁儿童有着抽烟、喝酒、打架、上网等行为,后掐死奶奶,一年后又杀死太婆;广西13岁少年辍学后多次离家出走在外流浪谋生,从乞讨、偷窃等行为,演变为杀害三姐弟;甘肃一名未成年人自幼无人照顾,浪迹于社会,跟其他不良青少年混在一起,后因偷抢财物杀一人、重伤一人;广东一起未成年人强奸杀人案中,该未成年人13岁以前在原籍曾多次打架斗殴,后重伤他人、强奸杀人;等等。
[28]宋英辉教授主持的《未成年人保护与犯罪预防问题研究》课题组对Y、S、G和SH四省399名未成年人服刑人员进行问卷调查显示,在380个有效数据中,学校或家长对不良行为或严重不良行为没有采取任何应对措施的有63例,占16.58%,采取应对措施的有317例,占83.42%。学校或家长的应对措施包括批评教育(267例,占70.26%)、劝退(50名,占13.16%),并无专业干预。另外,未成年人具有不良行为或严重不良行为时,警察介入的有169例。其中,警察只是简单批评教育或者没有批评教育、通知家长带回或直接放走而没有进行专业干预和后续跟进的达143例,占84.61%。
[29] Howard T. Matthews, Status Offenders:Our Children's Constitutional Rights Versus What's Right for Them, Southern University Law Review, Vol.27, No.2, 2000, p.201; Julie J. Kim, Left Behind:The Paternalistic Treatment of Status Offenders Within the Juvenile Justice System, Exegesis&Argument,Vol.15, No.3, 2009, pp.848-851; Tracy J. Simmons, Mandatory Mediation:A Better Way to Address Status Offenses, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 21, No.3, 2006, pp. 1043-1072; Soma R.Kedia, Creating an Adolescent Criminal Class:Juvenile Court Jurisdiction over Status Offenders,Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, Vol.5, No.1, 2006, pp.543-550; Claire Shubik, Jessica Kendall, Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Laws:Considerations for Congressional Review of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Family Court Review, Vol.45, No.3, 2007, pp.384-398.
[30]在日本,虞犯行为主要包括:(1)具有不服从监护人正当保护的习性;(2)无正当理由而对家庭没有亲近感;(3)与有犯罪倾向的人或不道德的人交往,出入不健康场所;(4)具有损害自己或他人道德修养的习性。在我国台湾地区,虞犯行为主要包括:(1)经常与有犯罪习性之人交往者;(2)经常出入少年不当进入之场所者;(3)经常逃学逃家者:(4)参加不良组织者;(5)无正当理由携带刀械者;(6)有违警习性或经常于深夜在外游荡者;(7)吸食或施打烟毒以外之麻醉或迷幻物品者。
[31]郭豫珍:《“虞犯”概念在国际少年司法理念上的定位与检讨》,载《法学专刊》2005年50卷第4期。
[32]挪威《儿童福利法》第24条至第25条,来源于孙云晓、张美英编:《当代未成年人法律译丛挪威卷》,中国检察出版社2006年版,第146-147页。
[33] Karen M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, John Paul Warght, Juvenile Justice, Six Edition, Wadsworth,2013, pp.333-366; Robert W. Taylor,Eric J. Fritsch, Juvenile Justice:Policies,Programs and Practices,Forth Edition, McGraw-Hill Education, 2014, pp.295-330.
[34] Robert E. Shepherd, Critical to Transition for Incarcerated Youths, Criminal Justice, Vol.20, 2005,pp.57-59; Jerrod Thompson-Hicks, Re-entry and the Juvenile Defender, John Marshall Law Journal,Vol.8, 2015, pp.567-596.
[35] Development Services Group, Inc., Juvenile Reentry, Literature Review, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,2017, https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Aftercare.pdf, 2019年2月20日访问。
[36] Lurigio, Arthur, Gad Bensinger, S. Rae Thompson, Kristin Elling, Donna Poucis, Jill Selvaggio,MelissaSpooner, A Process and Outcome Evaluation of Project BUILD:Years 5 and 6, Unpublished Report, Loyola University, 2000.
[37]Trupin, Eric J., Suzanne E. U. Kerns, Sarah Cusworth Walker, Megan T. DeRobertis, and David G.Stewart, Family Integrated Transitions:A Promising Program for Juvenile Offenderswith CoOccurring Disorders, Journal of Child&Adolescent Substance Abuse, Vol.20, 2011, pp.421-436.
[38]《国务院办公厅转发国家教育委员会、公安部、共青团中央<关于办好工读学校几点意见的通知>》(1987年)。
[39]《刑法》第17条第4款规定,因不满16周岁不予刑事处罚的,责令他的家长或者监护人加以管教;在必要的时候,也可以由政府收容教养。