論被害人參與少年事件程序

Victim participation in Juvenile Justice Act

我國少年事件處理法1 條明定「為保障少年健全之自我成長，調整其成長環境，並矯治其性格，特制定本法」，又日本少年法1 條明定「本法以期許少年健全育成，以及對於非行少年實施性格矯正及環境調整之保護處分的同時，就少年刑事案件以採取特別措施為目的」。
對於日本之少年健全育成以及我國之少年健全自我成長的立法目的，究竟應如何明確界定內涵，牽動兩國少年保護事件程序以及少年刑事案件程序之解釋。在日本，少年法關於國家介入原理以及預定使用之處遇手段間，存有許多的討論，我國少年事件處理法之討論則較為稀少。
晚近，日本肇因於該國國內屢次發生重大的少年事件，因此保護處分以及刑事處分之間的運用，呈現「此消彼漲」之現況。此係因刑事處分在日本向來僅被界定為單純制裁性機能之處遇手段，因此若進一步放寬少年受逆送檢察官之程度，等同放寬少年嗣後受單純性制裁的可能性。此種提高少年受刑事制裁之可能，是否合於日本少年法1 條之健全育成目的，存有疑義。就此，在日本存在嚴罰化肯定論及否定論之兩種觀點。
相對於此，我國則並未如日本屢屢發生重大少年事件，關於少年事件處理法較為重要的修正包含1997 年（民國86 年）、2019 年（民國108 年）以及2023 年（民國112 年）的修法。我國少年事件處理1997 年明確採用「以保護代替管訓，以教養代替懲罰」，是否即代表我國關於少年事件處理法之介入原理相當於日本少年法之保護原理一元論，亦不明確。其次，作為少年司法程序一環的少年刑事案件程序以刑事處分作為預定使用之處遇，是否符合健全自我成長之目的，以及是否要如日本相同採取單純性制裁機能之理解，亦屬疑問。
再者，少年保護事件程序、少年刑事案件程序中，關於被害人程序參與權之具體範圍應如何建構，實有賴兩者程序之正當法律程序的內涵。少年保護事件程序及少年刑事案件程序之正當法律程序須取決於兩者程序之定位而有相異的內容。被害人程序參與權作為具體之程序運作建置，亦須受到正當法律程序以及程序之終局目的所影響。因此，少年保護事件程序、少年刑事案件程序兩者的程序定位為何，即有討論之必要。2023 年（民國112 年）的修法將少年保護事件程序、少年刑事案件程序與一般刑事訴訟程序間之關係為釐清，並以少年事件處理法1-1 條2 項明定「本法未規定者，於與少年保護事件、少年刑事案件性質不相違反之範圍內，準用其他法律」，從「準用」之用語，顯示出立法者已清楚認識到三者程序之不同。
雖2023 年（民國112 年）的修法已經將先前釋字805 號解釋部分關於少年保護事件程序的被害人意見陳述權，經由立法明確規定，但是就其他被害人程序參與權之範圍（例如，被害人於少年保護事件程序中之名譽及隱私保障）則仍只能依照少年事件處理法1-1 條2 項探求有無準用刑事訴訟法之空間。
其次，2023 年（民國112 年）的修法，依照少年事件處理法65 條2 項明定「刑事訴訟法關於自訴及被害人訴訟參與之規定，於少年刑事案件不適用之」。姑且先不論少年事件處理法1-1 條2 項以及少年事件處理法65 條2 項於法條用語上呈現「準用」及「適用」的前後矛盾狀態，此種完全否定少年刑事案件程序「適用」刑事訴訟法關於被害人訴訟參與制度之立法選擇，是否妥適，亦存有疑義。又現行少年事件處理法就少年刑事案件程序之規範密度稍嫌不足。因此，有必要具體劃定被害人程序參與權在少年刑事案件程序之範圍，並檢討2023 年（民國112 年）的修法。
以下本文將先考察現行日本以及我國之少年法制以及被害人法制的演變，再比較日本的少年健全育成以及我國的少年健全自我成長之概念，並同時嘗試觀察日本對於少年健全育成目的之實現是否已經產生轉變，並介紹日本少年法制之正當法律程序以及日本現行少年法下被害人之程序參與權的具體規定。
藉日本法上之觀察，本文將繼續回頭探討我國少年事件處理法關於少年保護事件程序以及少年刑事案件程序之正當法律程序，並說明兩者程序與一般刑事訴訟間之差異。最終，本文將檢討被害人程序參與權在現行少年事件處理法之缺失，並嘗試提出將來立法政策之方向，以供參考。

In Taiwan, Article 1 of the Juvenile Justice Act explicitly states "This Act is hereby enacted to safeguard the sound self-development of the juveniles, to adjust their growth environment, and to rectify their character". Similarly, Article 1 of the Japanese Juvenile Law states, "This law aims to safeguard the sound self-development of the juveniles, as well as to implement protective measures for rectifing their character and environmental adjustment, and taking special measures for juvenile criminal cases".
In Japan, there is a lot of discussion in juvenile law about the principle of state intervention and function of measures. Howener, there is relatively little discussion on the Juvenile Justice Act in Taiwan. Therefore, it is doubtful that the intervention principle of the Taiwan Juvenile Justice Act and the function of criminal measures.
Recently, there have been many serious juvenile incidents in Japan. As a result, in Japan, there is a legislative trend towards a reduction in the use of protective measures and an expansion of criminal measures. In Japan, criminal measures have always been defined as a purely sanctionive measure or punishments. Thus, further lowering the threshold for the transfer of juveniles to prosecutors would be tantamount to increasing the likelihood that juveniles would be subject to criminal sanctions.
However, it is doubtful whether this is in line with the legislative purpose of Article 1 of the Juvenile Law of Japan. At present, in Japan, there are two prospectives on the answer to this question, including the affirmative theory and the negative theory.
Taiwan has not had many major juvenile incidents like Japan. Important amendments to Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act include amendments to the 1997, 2019 and 2023 amendments. In 1997, Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act explicitly mentioned that "protective measures should be used instead of reprimands, and punishments should be replaced by educational measures ". It is questionable whether this represents the principle of intervention of Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act, which is equivalent to the principle of protection of Japanese juvenile law.
Besides, whether the juvenile criminal case procedure, as a part of the whole juvenile justice process, treats criminal measure as a pure punishment, and whether it is in accordance with the purpose of safeguarding the sound self-development of the juveniles. In addition, it is also questionable whether Taiwan should be like Japan, that treats criminal measure as a pure punishment.
The specific scope of the victim’s right to participate in the proceedings depends on the due process connotation of the juvenile protection procedure and the juvenile criminal case procedure. Due process of law depends on the final purpose of the process and therefore has different contents. The right of victims to participate in the proceedings, as part of the operation of the proceedings, is also affected by the purpose of the proceedings.
Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the final purpose of the proceedings of the juvenile protection incident procedure and the juvenile criminal case procedure.
Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act Amendment in 2023 distinguishes between juvenile protection procedures, juvenile criminal case procedures, and ordinary criminal procedures. Article 1-1, Paragraph 2 of Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act stipulates that"Matters in relation to juvenile protection and juvenile criminal cases shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act; matters not covered by this Act shall be governed by other relevant statutory laws". The word used shows that legislators are well aware of the differences in juvenile protection incident procedure, juvenile criminal case procedure and criminal procedure.
Although the 2023 amendment to the law has clearly stipulated the victim’s right to state opinions on the procedures for juvenile protection incidents in the previous interpretation of interpretation No. 805, it has been clearly stipulated through legislation.
However, the scope of other victims’ rights to participate in the proceedings, such as the victim’s reputation and privacy protection in the juvenile protect-tion proceedings, is still only regulated by Article 1-1, Paragraph 2 of Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act.
Secondly, the 2023 amendment to the law is in accordance with Article 65, Paragraph 2 of Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act, which stipulates that "juvenile criminal cases do not apply to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law on victims’ participation in litigation".
It is doubtful whether such a legislative policy that completely denies the "application" of the Criminal Procedure Law to the procedures of juvenile criminal cases with respect to the victims’ participation in litigation is appropriate. In addition, the degree of standardization of juvenile criminal proceedings is still insufficient.
Therefore, it is necessary to specifically define the scope of the victim’s right to participate in the proceedings in juvenile criminal cases, and to review the amendments to the law in 2023.
In the following article, we will examine the evolution of the juvenile legal system and the victim legal system in Japan and Taiwan. Next, we will compare the concept of safeguarding the sound self-development of the juveniles in Japan and Taiwan.
At the same time, this paper attempts to observe whether there has been a change in the realization of the goal of safeguarding the sound self-development of the juveniles in Japan, and introduces the due process of law in the Jap-anese juvenile legal system and the specific provisions of the victim’s right to participate in the proceedings under the current juvenile law in Japan.
Based on observations in Japanese law, this article will examine the proper legal procedures regarding juvenile protection events and juvenile criminal cases under Taiwan’s Juvenile Justice Act. It will also elucidate the differences between these procedures and criminal proceedings.
Finally, this article will examine the issues surrounding the rights of victim participation in the current Juvenile Justice Act in Taiwan and attempt to propose directions for future legislative policies for reference.