少年司法與發展心理學及神經科學的交會－以美國聯邦最高法院判決為借鏡

Abstract

少年「責任」的實質內涵為何，關乎我們要以怎樣的態度面對少年。假若認為少年非行行為過於嚴重，就必須以嚴刑峻罰威懾少年，藉此安撫社會大眾的情緒，這是將刑事法的理念誤植到少年司法體系，不僅背離少事法的立法精神，反而有害少年「健全成長」的可能性。\n為了釐清少年責任的實質內涵，本文借鏡美國聯邦最高法院2000年後幾個判決，這些判決以發展心理學及腦神經科學的研究成果，指出少年與成人相比，身心較不成熟，責任感也尚未發展健全，少年的行為經常是衝動的，以至於無法準確評估其行為的後果；少年的行為很容易受到外界壓力的影響，尤其是同儕壓力的影響；少年的性格尚未定型，因此具有可塑性。因此，正處於發展階段的少年不應與成熟的成人接受相同程度的非難，少年的刑事責任應該予以減輕，並促使聯邦最高法院以違反憲法第8條修正案不得處以殘酷且異常的刑罰為由廢除少年犯死刑及大幅限制對少年處以終身監禁不得假釋的可能性。\n至於Scott和Steinberg所提出的以發展為基礎的少年司法模式，試圖將發展心理學及神經科學的研究成果與刑法理論結合，認為少年與成人相比雖然較不可歸責，但還是具有限制責任能力。然而，無論是美國聯邦最高法院或是以發展為基礎的少年司法模式，仍是以傳統刑事法中的應報原則為核心，與我國少事法採保護優先主義的立法理念存在根本上的衝突。本文認為，有關少年責任的定位，仍應回歸我國少事法第一條來加以理解，以「健全成長」為目的，將少年定位為處遇之主體，成人則是從旁扮演支持、協助的角色，只要少年在社會得以容忍的臨界點內，就應任由少年自由成長，使其對自己的未來有選擇的空間和機會。

What is the essence of the "responsibility" of juvenile is related to the attitude we have to face them. If we think that the juvenile delinquency is too serious, so juvenile must be deterred with severe penalties to appease the public’s emotions. This is a mistake in planting the concept of criminal law into the juvenile justice system, which not only deviates from the legislative spirit of Juvenile Delinquency Act, but also harms "healthy growth" of juvenile.\nIn order to clarify the substantive connotation of juvenile responsibility, this article lessons from the U.S. Supreme Court cases after 2000. These cases use the research results of developmental psychology and neuroscience to point out that juveniles are less mature physically and mentally than adults, and their sense of responsibility has not yet been developed. They are also very impulsive, so that it is impossible to accurately assess the consequences of their behavior. Juvenile are more vuluneable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, especially peer pressure. The character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed, so it is plastic. Therefore, we should not treat juveniles as mature as adults, the criminal responsibility of juveniles should be mitigation. A series of case laws of U.S. Supreme Court adopt this knowledge. They have abolished death penality and greatly restricted the possibility of life imprisonment without parole against juveniles.\nAs for the development-based juvenile justice model proposed by Scott and Steinberg, they tried to combine the research results of developmental psychology and neuroscience with criminal law theories. They thinked that although juveniles are less culpability than adults, they still have limited capacity for criminal responsibility. However, whether it is the U.S. Supreme Court or the development-based juvenile justice model, their theory still bases on the core principle of retribution in the traditional criminal law. There is a fundamental conflict with the legislative conception of the principle of the priority of protection in Juvenile Delinquency Act. This article believes that the positioning of juvenile responsibilities should still be understood by returning to Article 1 of Juvenile Delinquency Act. For the purpose of "healthy growth", juveniles should be positioned as the subjects of treatment, while adults should act as support and assistance role. As long as the juveniles are within the critical point that society can tolerate, they should be allowed to grow up freely so that they have the space and opportunity to choose their own future.