| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 犯罪學研究所 === 101 === Article 26, Sub-section 2 of the Juvenile Proceeding Act of Republic of China provides that the Juvenile Court may send a juvenile to a juvenile detention center; provided that it is limited to when the juvenile cannot be sentenced to custody or an order for custody is obviously improper, and that the detention is necessary. This rule, when compared to the important conditions for being detained for trial by the Code of Criminal Procedure, is obviously more general in nature.
Thus, is juvenile detention a compulsory treatment to restrict the juvenile’s freedom before the trial is completed? Or does this legislation have the function to counsel and correct juveniles, thus seeking to prevent them from recommitting crimes? There is ambiguity, and indeed ambiguity in terms of the criminological theory that can be said to underpin both questions. Thus Crime Deterrence Theory states that to lock criminals up has the effect of deterrence and prevention of recidivism; while Age-Graded Informal Social Control Theory states that the correctional institution is an important event in a person’s life, providing the criminal an opportunity to turn a new leaf , to cut off the bad influences of the past and to end recidivism. However, Labeling theory states that the detention of juveniles in legal institutions may generate further serious effects of labeling.
This study considered 616 juveniles from one juvenile court in Taiwan from year 2007 to 2008, monitoring their recidivism over two years. The aim was to examine whether there is a significant difference in recidivism rate between the juveniles who were detained in the detention center and those who were not ( after controlling for the juvenile’s personal and family variables and also the variable of the seriousness of the crime). In addition, this study also considered whether the length of time spent in the detention center may have an impact upon recidivism over 2 years.
The research found that over the two year period, legal detention may increase the recidivism rate of male juveniles, juveniles who have broken the criminal law, juveniles who have committed theft, and those who have had prior record. However, detention of juveniles who are likely to violate the criminal law and who frequently skip school or run away from home showed no significant influence on the recidivism rate. All in all, detention and the length of detention showed no significant effect on the prevention of juvenile recidivism. And detention may even increase the recidivism rate of certain juveniles.
This study has four recommendations. First, the detention system should be promptly reviewed and improved, including that any legal conditions are specified in detail. Juveniles who are likely to violate the criminal law being detained separately from more serious offenders, and before ordering to send a juvenile to a detention center the judge should investigate whether he or she is suitable to undergo detention, and with the time of detention being lessened to 4 months at most. Second, there should be a more diversified array of juvenile detention centers to accommodate the particular needs of juveniles. Aside from being under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Detention House of the Ministry of Justice, there should also be accommodation provided by the Social Welfare Sector. Third, during the stage of investigation and trial, the ruling of the use of Correction Institutions for detention should be lessened. Fourth, there should be greater cooperation between the justice department and other government institutions, to reduce the chances of juveniles entering the legal system where they are prone to be labeled.
|
|---|
