少年事件需保護性之認定――以日本少年法制為中心

The Determination of the“Need for Protection”in Juvenile Cases: A Focus on the Japanese Juvenile Justice System

我國少年事件處理法對課予保護處分之核心要件「需保護性」未有明文，致實務標準分歧。本文鑒於日本少年法影響我國少年法制深遠，以比較法探討需保護性要件與內涵，作為解釋之參考。對於需保護性之認定，日本通說採「三要件說」（犯罪危險性、矯正可能性、保護相當性）。然「保護相當性」易受非行輕重與社會評價影響，致少年司法有淪為小型刑事審判之虞，違背保護優先精神。
為此，本文主張揚棄此概念，重構以「犯罪危險性」與「處遇措施之有效性」為核心之二要件模式。就「犯罪危險性」，得以非行事實推定，但須經由審前調查等程序進行質性評估，以判斷該推定是否推翻犯罪危險性；若不具危險性則回歸社福體系進行處遇。
至於「處遇措施之有效性」，則應統合司法與社會資源，在尊重少年主體性下，尋求能促使其自主克服非行、且限制最小之最適方案。此認定過程須仰賴法官、少年調查官、輔佐人與家庭等協力完成，方能將其轉化成少年自主克服非行，並改變的契機及動力。

Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act lacks an explicit statutory definition of the“need for protection”—the core prerequisite for imposing protective dispositions—resulting in inconsistent adjudicative standards in practice. Given the profound influence of Japanese jurisprudence on Taiwan’s legal system, this article adopts a comparative legal approach to explore the elements and substance of the“need for protection”to serve as an interpretive reference.
Regarding the determination of the need for protection, the prevailing Japanese doctrine adopts a“three-element theory”: the risk of delinquency, amenability to correction, and suitability of protection. However, the element of“suitability of protection”is susceptible to the gravity of the offense and social critique. This creates a risk that juvenile justice may devolve into a“mini-criminal trial,”thereby violating the fundamental spirit of prioritizing protection.
Consequently, this article argues for discarding this concept and reconstructing a two-element model centered on the“risk of delinquency”and the“effectiveness of dispositional measures.”regarding the“risk of delinquency,”while it may be presumed from the facts of the delinquency, it requires qualitative assessment through procedures such as pre-hearing investigations. The mindset of focusing solely on the quantitative gravity of the offense must be abandoned to determine whether such presumption is rebutted. If no risk exists, the case should be diverted to the social welfare system.
As for the“effectiveness of dispositional measures,”judicial and social resources should be integrated. While respecting the juvenile’s agency, the objective is to identify the optimal and least restrictive alternative that encourages the juvenile to autonomously overcome delinquency. This determination process relies on the collaboration of judges, juvenile investigators, advocates, and families to transform the process into an opportunity and motivation for the juvenile to change.