普通法院審查檢察官對少年強制處分之聲請時，應分由刑事庭或少年法庭處理之問題，就事務分配部分涉及法定法官原則，法定法官原則並不能導出「特定案件應由專業法官處理」之要求，僅要求非出於恣意之事前抽象規範；就實際分案部分涉及對少年事件處理法第18 條第1 項適用之寬嚴，現行實務多數意見反映刑事司法系統強勢之現實，本文期待臺灣社會願意更重視少年之主體性，挹注更多資源促進少年司法福利系統之自主運作。

When the ordinary Court accepted prosecutor’s application for judicial compulsory measures against juvenile, in practice the issue “the application should be assigned to Criminal or Juvenile Tribunal?” often arouses controversy. This article analyzed two factors of this issue, one is the principle of lawful designation of judges, and the other is interpretation of Article 18, Paragraph 1 of Juvenile Delinquency Act (Taiwan). This article found that, most judges interpret the above Article restrictively, which reflects the superiority of Criminal Justice System.