未成年人犯罪案件刑事附带民事诉讼若干问题探析——以我国新《刑事诉讼法》的相关规定为中心

2012年修改的我国《刑事诉讼法》实施后，未成年人犯罪案件刑事附带民事诉讼中可能存在“合适成年人”无法作为民事诉讼法定代理人以维护有关未成年人民事权益、适用“当事人和解的公诉案件诉讼程序”时将被告人赔偿与否作为量刑情节而造成对被告人不公、适用“简易程序”时法官施压调解而干预阻碍被告人行使民事诉讼权利、审判人员能否兼备审理刑事案件与民事案件的专业素养等问题。为了在发挥刑事附带民事诉讼制度优点的同时一定程度上控制其缺陷所造成的不利影响，司法解释应规定在未成年人犯罪案件中，刑事附带民事诉讼制度不适用于刑事附带民事诉讼的民事部分标的金额较大的情形、被告人可能被判处较重刑罚的情形、刑事附带民事诉讼的刑事部分与民事部分审级不一致的情形、案件审理时间较长的情形。     

Problems and Solution for Criminal and Attached Civil Procedure on Juvenile Delinquency Cases According to

2012年修改的我国《刑事诉讼法》实施后，未成年人犯罪案件刑事附带民事诉讼中可能存在“合适成年人”无法作为民事诉讼法定代理人以维护有关未成年人民事权益、适用“当事人和解的公诉案件诉讼程序”时将被告人赔偿与否作为量刑情节而造成对被告人不公、适用“简易程序”时法官施压调解而干预阻碍被告人行使民事诉讼权利、审判人员能否兼备审理刑事案件与民事案件的专业素养等问题。为了在发挥刑事附带民事诉讼制度优点的同时一定程度上控制其缺陷所造成的不利影响，司法解释应规定在未成年人犯罪案件中，刑事附带民事诉讼制度不适用于刑事附带民事诉讼的民事部分标的金额较大的情形、被告人可能被判处较重刑罚的情形、刑事附带民事诉讼的刑事部分与民事部分审级不一致的情形、案件审理时间较长的情形。     

儿童最大利益原则在我国少年刑事 司法中的适用

儿童最大利益原则是《儿童权利公约》规定的重要原则,我国作为《儿童权利公约》的缔约国有义务适用该原则。由于儿童最大利益原则具有模糊性的特点,增加了我国适用该原则的难度。从宏观上说,我国的少年刑事司法不仅应当立足于国家与社会的实践,以转化的方式适用该原则,而且还应当进一步调整刑事司法理念以更好地适用该原则。从具体措施来说,我国少年刑事司法应当通过建立"儿童利益最大原则"的统一解释制度,建立我国少年刑事法院,完善我国未成年人犯罪的社区矫正制度等方式来更好地适用该原则,从而全面保障我国未成年人在刑事司法中的权利。     

和谐法治视野下的未成年人权益保护展望

我国和谐法治对未成年人权益保护已经有了诸如未成年人司法保护对象的全面化、政府为主保障儿童权利等方面的发展,但也仍然存在少年司法依附成人模式、未成年人权益保护法律没有形成独立的体系等不足.未来应当完善适合审理未成年人案件的实体法、程序法,健全少年司法的法律体系,补充未成年人自我保护规定,明确未成年人权利主体地位,构筑全社会对未成年人权利的法律信仰,以确保未成年人合法权益的实现.     

修复式司法在校园霸凌中的适用

我国传统的报应式刑事司法模式已经难以应对日趋严峻的校园霸凌以及由此引发的未成年人犯罪案件,有必要引入修复式司法以弥补报应式司法的不足。如果只是为了实现个案正义,那么,再怎么降低刑事责任年龄都不啻为削足适履,而且极有可能使得被贴上"犯罪标签"的未成年人产生恶性循环,诱发更严重的犯罪行为。修复式司法把被害人疗愈和加害人自愿承担责任作为目标,注重双方以平等的方式沟通交流,使双方有机会了解事情的真相,最大程度地满足实质需求,最终修复被犯罪所破坏的关系。     

农村未成年人刑事司法维权探究

我国农村庞大的未成年人群、农村未成年人犯罪的特殊性以及农村未成年人刑事司法维权中遇到的各种现实难题，决定了加强和完善农村未成年人刑事司法维权工作的必要性、迫切性和重要性。本文以浙江省象山县人民法院（以下简称“象山法院”）未成年人刑事审判实践为例，在具体阐析了农村未成年人犯罪的特殊性以及农村未成年人刑事司法维权中存在的现实难题后，从科学理念、审判程序和模式、相关制度和规定等方面，对加强和完善农村未成年人刑事司法维权工作进行了实证研究，并据此提出了一些笔者认为可行的具体建议。     

母亲 法官——记全国“人民满意的好法官”李其宏

2000年6月7日,北京人民大会堂,在由全国人大内务司法委员会和团中央举行的预防未成年人犯罪座谈会上,河南省泌阳县法院少年审判庭的一份叫做《用爱心营造维护青少年合法权益的良好氛围》的典型材料引起了300多名与会领导、专家的广泛关注:自1992年以来,泌阳县法院少年审判庭共审结各类涉少案件788件816人,有283名少年犯被判缓刑、免刑后分别升入大中专院校或高一级中学学习,346名少年犯走向社会成为各行业的技术能手。经回访考察,被判刑的816名少年犯无一人重新犯罪,且所审理的案件达到无超时、无三类卷、上诉无发还、无改判、无上访、无缠…     

从“教罚并重”到“保护优先”——论台湾地区少年司法理念的转变

台湾地区过去对非行少年的处遇强调"教罚并重、宽严并济",因此《少年事件处理法》亦被学者称为"迷你刑法"。但1997年的大幅修法动作,不仅设立少年法院、将社区处遇引入少年司法及增设一系列柔性制度,亦显现台湾地区少年司法政策从"惩罚"到"保护"理念的转变。     

最高法公布保障民生典型案例:破坏生态可判异地补植

正最高人民法院3月19日召开新闻通气会,公布人民法院保障民生第二批典型案例及有关情况。案例共11个,涉及刑事、民事、行政三大诉讼领域,内容涵盖土地纠纷、金融诈骗、消费者权益保护、环境保护等,对保障民生司法审判工作具有指导意义。在王淑荣与何福云、王喜胜等农村土地承包经营权纠纷案中,吉林省三级法院作出4个裁判结果。这体现出部分法院对相关问题认识不一。最高法公布此案,明确了法院在审理类似案件时,应当比照《农村土地承包法》第二十六条第三款之规定,在认     

刑民交叉案件处理模式研究

为了正确处理刑民交叉案件,最高人民法院颁布了《关于在审理经济纠纷案件中涉及经济犯罪嫌疑若干问题的规定》,该规定对于正确区分民事和刑事两个不同的法律关系,依法保护当事人的民事权益,确保民商事审判的有序进行,发挥了积极的作用。但近几年来,审判实践中处理刑民交叉案件时仍存在一些尚不明确的程序与实体问题,将＂先刑后民＂视为刑民交叉案件司法原则的做法存在一些弊端。文章试图在考察并借鉴国外司法中对刑民交叉案件处理经验的基础上,从法律规定的细化与立法的创新两方面提出完善我国立法的建议。     

Youthful Offending and Delinquency: The Comorbid Impact of Maltreatment,Mental Health Problems,and Learning Disabilities

A majority of adolescents formally involved in juvenile court have at least one, if not more than one, significant emotional or learning impairment, or maltreatment experience. This is particularly true in juvenile detention and incarceration facility populations. While this problem is increasingly recognized within the juvenile justice system and social work profession, often the impact and correlation to delinquency of these child and youth difficulties is underestimated. This paper reviews the links from mental health disorders, learning (and academic-related) disabilities, and maltreatment victimizations to delinquent and serious youthful offending behaviors, and provides successful collaboration outcome examples to address this problem. The most difficult challenge to juvenile courts and youth-caring systems is working with adolescents and families with comorbid difficulties, for this group is most at risk for incarceration and involvement with the adult criminal justice system.     

Juvenile Courts and Competency to Stand Trial

This article reviews the recent development of juvenile competency to stand trial (CST) policies across the United States in light of the inherent contradiction of this due process procedure in a separate juvenile court that is premised on the incompetence of youth. The article draws on existing CST legal doctrine and psycho‐legal research to demonstrate the need for sociolegal research to better understand who gains access to the CST process, CST decisions, and how CST may influence subsequent case processing decisions. Utilizing CST as an adopted formal policy from criminal court and an exploratory case study, I demonstrate the difficulties facing how court actors manage the role of youthfulness and culpability for CST decision‐making in contemporary juvenile courts. Overall, both quantitative and qualitative research is needed to examine whether court actors’ practice of CST serves to further deconstruct or reinforce the juvenile court’s rehabilitative ideal.     

Elder Abuse and Guardians of Elderly Incompetents

Caregivers vary widely in their behavior toward those for whom they care. Some are very good while others cross over into criminal behavior. Guardians, as one category of caregivers, undoubtedly parallel other caregivers in their behavior patterns in that behavior stretches from the very good to the criminal. The courts who appoint guardians have the responsibility to see that guardians do not abuse or neglect their wards. For courts to improve the performance of guardians will require that that the courts have an effective system of accountability by the guardians as to how they have performed and the power to fine or otherwise penalize errant guardians. Finally, the courts must be given the resources necessary to perform the review function. The court must be transformed from a passive to a proactive entity and be supplied with the staff required to adequately supervise the guardians that it appoints.     

An Evaluation of Mechanisms of Change in Multisystemic Therapy for Juvenile Justice‐Involved Youths A Decade Following Treatment

Although researchers have identified the more immediate mechanisms of change in family‐based treatments for juvenile justice‐involved youths, it is not known whether these same mechanisms continue to prevent criminal offending into adulthood. The present study evaluated whether caregiver‐directed improvements in family relations, youth prosocial peer relations, and youth academic performance during multisystemic therapy (MST) for serious and violent juvenile offenders had an impact on young adult involvement in criminal activity and sentencing 10.2 years following treatment. The results showed that improvements in family relations were associated with reduced odds of criminal outcomes a decade later for former MST participants. Furthermore, improvements in youth prosocial peer relations and academic performance were also related to lower odds of long‐term criminal activity. These results are consistent with the underlying theory of change in family‐based treatments and demonstrate that caregivers are critical to achieving and sustaining decreased antisocial behavior for youths with serious and violent criminal histories.     

降低刑事责任年龄否定论

降低刑事责任年龄的提议主要立足于三个命题:“犯罪低龄化”现象严重,降低刑事责任年龄是解决“低龄犯罪人”问题的应然手段,低龄未成年人已具备相当的辨认、控制能力。通过对实证数据与相关论据的收集分析,前两个命题得到证伪,第三个命题无法证明,由此可以否定降低刑事责任年龄观点的合理性依据。从我国历史与近代刑事责任年龄设定的发展历程来看,调整年龄节点的主张从未停止,援用的理由相差无几,经历过多次变动与论证后延续至今,具备符合我国社会发展实践的合理性与稳定性。从我国的义务教育设置与年龄之间的对应关系出发,刑事责任年龄确定的基准点应以义务教育的结束为合理节点,采取“从高到低”的刑事责任年龄设定逻辑。综合上述理由,兼顾少年司法“教育为主、惩罚为辅”刑事政策导向,最终得出当前的刑事责任年龄设置合理,不需降低的结论。     

Migration, Displacement, and Violence: Prosecuting Romanian Street Children at the Paris Palace of Justice

This paper examines the displacement and vulnerability associated with the migration of unaccompanied illegal Romanian minors who came as economic migrants to Western Europe, found no legal opportunities for work or education, and were forced into criminal activity on the streets of French cities such as Paris, Lyon, and Nice. Beginning in 1997 growing numbers of unaccompanied Romanians, mostly boys, some as young as age ten, many younger than age 15, were subject to systematic prosecution rather than protection in Paris, the site of the largest and most influential juvenile court in the nation. They were arrested, detained, indicted, released pending trial, judged, and sentenced in absentia, multiple times with different identities. The Romanian minors were caught without legal papers or visas, claimed to be squatters living in abandoned buildings, trailers, or camps outside Paris, and gave little reliable information about their families or lives. Initially arrested for the destruction of city property and the theft of the proceeds from city parking meters, they gradually turned to begging, shoplifting, and prostitution when the city switched from coin to card payment. Deeply concerned by the penalization of a vulnerable population, the president of the Paris juvenile court created a special court to deal more humanely with unaccompanied minors in general, and Romanian children in particular, by establishing their identities and reconnecting them with their families. This article explores the contradictions that emerged between the representation of Romanian children in the media, the legal establishment, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the Government, on the one hand, and their treatment in the juvenile justice system, on the other. It examines the discourse and the context of judging as well as the interactions between court personnel and Romanian minors from in‐take interviews in jail and indictment hearings in chambers to judgment in absentia in the formal court. It compares and contrasts cases heard before and after the creation of the special court and centres on the gaps between official rhetoric, legal norms, and judicial practice. It concludes that the creation of the special court may be having the unintended effect of reinforcing and institutionalizing the very judicial practice it was designed to prevent, namely the penalization of marginality.     

Social Work and Criminal Justice

SUMMARY

We shall begin with the principal, and complicated, conclusion: Regrettably, the social work profession has largely abandoned the criminal justice field. That is not to say that social workers are not employed in criminal justice settings. Certainly they are. Significant numbers of social workers earn their living as probation and parole officers, caseworkers in public defender offices, counselors in correctional institutions and halfway houses, and so on. As a profession, however, social work no longer has a major presence in the criminal justice field (Gibelman and Schervish, 1993). Relatively few social workers embark on their professional education with the aim of employment in the criminal justice field. Virtually no courses in social work education programs focus explicitly or comprehensively on criminal justice (Knox and Roberts, 2002; McNeece and Roberts, 1997). Workshops offered at professional conferences or continuing education seminars rarely focus on criminal justice issues per se. And, relatively little serious scholarship on criminal justice issues is authored by social workers.

Interestingly, this has not always been the state of affairs. Earlier in the profession's history, social workers were much more visible and vocal participants in dialogue, debate, research, and practice related to criminal justice. Ideally-in light of social work's unique perspectives on practice and social problems, and the profession's noble value base-the profession will reclaim its preoccupation with criminal justice. As Sarri (2001) concludes with respect to social workers' involvement in the juvenile justice system in particular:

Thirty years ago, social workers were in leadership positions in juvenile justice in the majority of states. In the 1980s, a gradual decline began in agencies and in social work education for practice in juvenile justice. Some have suggested that the decline was at least partially due to professional resistance to working in coercive settings with involuntary clients. However, given the millions of people now caught up in the criminal justice system who are not receiving the social services they desperately need, it is a priority that social work return to a more central role in criminal justice. (p. 453)     

What makes sex offenders confess? An exploratory study

This study examines correlates of offender confession in criminal sexual conduct cases involving children. The cases consist of all closed court files (N=318), spanning the last 10 years from a single jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has a community-wide protocol for handling child sexual abuse cases, a high rate of charging (69%), a high rate of confession (64%), and high rates of pleas to sex crimes (77%). To determine what factors were associated with suspect confession before adjudication, we examined characteristics of the suspect, the child, the abuse, and the system using bi-variate and multi-variate analysis. The following four variables are associated with suspect confession: (1) having the state police conducting the law enforcement part of the investigation, (2) more serious abuse, (3) younger age of the suspect, and (4) having a court appointed (as opposed to a retained) attorney.     

Problem‐Solving Courts: Theory and Practice

Problem‐solving courts (PSCs) are a popular and fast‐growing alternative to the usual way of handling criminal cases. In place of the adversarial process, they provide court‐supervised treatment to certain groups of offenders by addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior. They take on a variety of forms including drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, veterans’ courts, and homeless courts. PSCs, as relatively new innovations in the criminal justice system, are still evolving in scope and in practice. This article then attempts to synthesize what we know about these specialty dockets. To do so, this article (1) explores the origins and developments of PSCs as well as highlights their defining characteristics; (2) examines the theoretical approaches and empirical findings of contemporary research on problem‐solving courts; (3) critically discusses whether this new approach to old problems compromises core judicial principles; and (4) suggests directions for further research to better understand the cautionary promise of problem‐solving justice.