Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:25:30.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Dualistic Model of Juvenile Justice System in China: In & Beyond Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Su Mingyue*
Affiliation:
College for Criminal Law Science, Beijing Normal University. Beijing, 100875. Visiting Scholar, Law school, Columbia University (2011); China Law Center, Yale University (2012). Email: [email protected]

Summary

In October 1984, Shanghai Changning district people's court established the first collegial panel of our country specializing in juvenile criminal cases; and it marks the beginning of the juvenile justice reform in China. After 30 years of development, the philosophy of juvenile justice has changed; juvenile judicial institutions are growing and juvenile justice system has gradually formed. Different from the practices of juvenile court in Western countries such as the U. S., Japan, and Germany, juvenile delinquency or deviant behavior that does not violate the criminal law would not enter the judicial process, but rather, would be handled by administrative agencies such as the police, and subject to coercive measures including educational measures, protective measures, and punitive measures in China. Among these measures, education through Custody as a strict administrative punishment can deprive the personal liberty of the juvenile delinquents for as long as four years. Instead of ruling by court through the due process in accordance with the law, decisions of education through custody are made by the administrative organs in practice. This practice is probably unique in the world.

Résumé

Résumé

En octobre 1984, le tribunal du peuple du district Changning de Shanghai a installé le premier panel collégial de notre pays spécialisé en délinquance juvénile. Cela a représenté le début de la réforme de la justice juvénile en Chine. Après trente ans de développement, la philosophie de la justice juvénile a changé. Les institutions judiciaires s'occupant des jeunes se sont multipliées et un système de justice juvénile s'est progressivement formé. A la différence des pratiques des tribunaux de la jeunesse de pays occidentaux comme les U.S.A., le Japon, ou l'Allemagne, la délinquance juvénile ou le comportement déviant qui ne viole pas le droit pénal ne fait pas l'objet d'un traitement judiciaire, mais est plutôt pris en charge par des agences administratives comme la police, et peut donner lieu à des mesures coercitives, qu'il s'agisse de mesures d’éducation, de mesures protectionnelles, ou de mesures punitives. Parmi ces mesures, l’éducation par l'enfermement en tant que stricte peine administrative peut priver les jeunes délinquants de leur liberté personnelle jusqu’à une durée de quatre ans. En pratique donc, au lieu de résulter d'un processus judiciaire réglé par la loi, les decisions d’éducation en détention sont prises par des organes administratifs. Cette pratique est sans doute un cas unique dans le monde.

Resumen

Resumen

En octubre de 1984, el Tribunal Popular del distrito de Changning, en Shanghai, instaló el primer panel colegial de nuestro país especializado en delincuencia juvenil. Ello representó el inicio de la reforma de la justicia de menores en China. Después de treinta años de desarrollo, la filosofía de la justicia juvenil ha cambiado. Las instituciones judiciales que se ocupan de los jóvenes se han multiplicado y se ha formado progresivamente un sistema de justicia juvenil. A diferencia de las prácticas de Tribunales de Menores de países occidentales, como los de EE.UU, Japón o Alemania, la delincuencia juvenil o el comportamiento desviado que no constituye delito no es objeto de un tratamiento judicial sino que más bien se ocupan de ello agencias administrativas –como la policía-, que pueden acordar medidas coercitivas, ya se trate de medidas educativas, de protección o medidas punitivas. Entre estas medidas, la educación a través de la custodia como una estricta sanción administrativa puede privar de libertad personal a los jóvenes delincuentes durante un tiempo de hasta cuatro años. Así, en la práctica, las decisiones sobre educación a través de la custodia en lugar de resultar de un proceso judicial regulado por la ley son decisiones tomadas por órganos administrativos. Esta práctica es probablemente única en el mundo.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 International Society for Criminology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ju, Q. (2007). A Quantitative Research on the Development of Juvenile Delinquency, Problems of Juvenile Delinquency, 5, 1524.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (1997). Juvenile Deviance and Delinquency under Social Transformation, Hong Kong: Guiguang Press. 6.Google Scholar
Pi, Y., & Jiang, T. (2007). The Local Characteristics of China's Juvenile Justice System Construction, Problems of Juvenile Delinquency, 4, 10.Google Scholar
Zhong, S. (2013). Go Forward in the Twists and Turns: Look back the 30 Years of Chinese Juvenile Justice System, The Rule of Law Forum, 2, 131132, 135.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. (2012). Keep the Faith, and Seek Improvement in Stability, Promote the Development of the Juvenile Court work Innovation with Chinese Characteristics, Speech in the 6th Working Conference of the Juvenile Court of the National Courts on August 31.Google Scholar
Su, M. (2010). Review for the Model of Juvenile Justice from the Comparative Study on Procedure and corrections of Juvenile Delinquency Cases between China and Japan, Problems of Juvenile Delinquency, 1, 7577.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. (2013). Education through Custody System and its Reformation, paper for the symposium of Criminal Law Re-construction after the time of reeducation through labor, Beijing, 237.Google Scholar
Ferro, J. (2003). Library in a book: Juvenile Crime. NY: Facts on File. p.83 Google Scholar
Rosenheim, M., Zimring, F., Tanenhaus, D., & Dohrn, B. (2002). A Century of Juvenile Justice, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 130140.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (2006). Report of American Juvenile Justice, translated by Shi, Y., Jurist, 6, 157160.Google Scholar
Yao, J. (2009). A Review of China's Juvenile Justice Research, Beijing: China's Prosecutoriate Press, 5.Google Scholar