學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 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
The Intersection of Juvenile Justice and Developmental Psychology and Neuroscience- Lessons from the U.S. Supreme Court Cases作者 胡孟郁
Hu, Meng-Yu貢獻者 謝如媛
Hsieh, Ju-Yuan
胡孟郁
Hu, Meng-Yu關鍵詞 少年責任
健全成長
發展心理學
神經科學
保護優先主義
Juvenile responsibility
Healthy growth
Developmental psychology
Neuroscience
the Principle of the priority of protection日期 2021 上傳時間 2-三月-2021 14:38:37 (UTC+8) 摘要 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。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。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.In 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.As 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.參考文獻 一、中文部分（依姓氏筆劃）（一）專書1.Laurence M. Friedman著，劉宏恩、王敏銓譯，美國法律史，台北：聯經，2016年8月。2.Laurence Steinberg著，蕭寶森譯，不是青春惹的禍：了解10~25歲孩子的大腦潛能，成功從教養開始，天下生活出版社，2015年6月。3.Laurence Steinberg著，戴俊毅譯，青春期：青少年的心理發展和健康成長，第七版，上海社會科學院出版社，2007年5月。4.Neil Postman著，蕭昭君譯，童年的消逝，台北：遠流，2004年。5.司法院司法行政廳，中美日三國死刑制度之比較研究，司法改革年報，第十七輯第十一篇，1997年6月。6.余漢儀，兒童虐待：現象解釋與問題反思，台北：巨流，1995年。7.林紀東，少年事件處理法論，台北：黎明文化，1978年。8.林清祥，少年事件處理法研究，台北：黎明文化，1987年。9.林雅鋒、嚴祖照，少年司法的理論與實務－從國際公約人權規範的角度出發，台北：新學林，2020年3月。10.罗跃嘉等，认知神经科学教程，北京：北京大学出版社，2006年1月。11.姚建龙，超越刑事司法美国少年史纲，法律出版社，2009年。12.茹立强、王才源、殷光甫等，神经科学基础，北京：清华大学，2004年。13.顾凡及、梁培基，神经信息处理，北京：北京工业大学，2007年10月。14.張廼良，美國少年法制之研究，台北：中央文物，1983年。15.郭靜晃、黃明發，發展心理學，新北：揚智文化，2013年。16.黃德祥，青少年發展與輔導，台北：五南，1994年。17.瑪格麗特.K.羅森海姆,富蘭克林.E.齊姆林,戴維.S.坦嫩豪斯,伯納德.多恩編，高維儉譯，少年司法的一個世紀，1版，北京商務印書館，2008年5月。18.趙雍生，社會變遷下的少年偏差與犯罪，台北：桂冠，1997年。19.劉玉玲，青少年發展－危機與轉機，台北：揚智文化，2005年。20.蔡德輝、楊士隆著，少年犯罪-理論與實務，5版一刷，台北：五南，2013年3月。21.蘇建文等，發展心理學，台北：桂冠，1998年。（二）期刊及專書論文1.Jay N. Giedd著，謝伯讓譯，躍動的青春期大腦，科學人雜誌，第161期，頁36-41，2015年7月。2.王玉葉，美國死刑制度的演進：Roper v. Simmons案廢除少年犯死刑之意義，歐美研究，第39卷第4期，頁571-614，2009年12月。3.刘兆敏、张琼琳，青少年脑發育的神经法学研究与应用，心理發展与教育，第6期，頁656-663，2014年。4.朱惠英，觸法少年的司法心理評估，司法研究年報，第24輯第9篇，2004年。5.何賴傑，少年保護程序與證據法則，載：民主、人權、正義－蘇俊雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，台北：元照，頁317-334，2005年。6.李茂生，八四年版少事法草案起草經過及評釋（下），刑事法雜誌，第40卷第1期，頁44-68，1996年2月。7.李茂生，少年犯罪的預防與矯治制度的批判－一個系統論的考察，台大法學論叢，第29卷第2期，頁79-174，2000年1月。8.李茂生，我國少年事件處理法的檢討與展望－以刑事司法與福利行政兩系統的交錯為論點，月旦法學雜誌，第74期，頁30-50，2001年7月。9.李茂生，新少年事件處理法的立法基本策略—後現代法秩序序說，台大法學論叢，第28卷第2期，頁141-228，1999年。10.李茂生，釋字第六六四號解釋評釋--憲法的顢頇與天真，臺灣法學雜誌，第137期，頁31-40，2009年10月。11.李銘杰、賈凡逸、陳怡君，何謂法律科際整合，載：邁向科際整合的法學研究，台北：政大法學院，頁65-82，2013年6月。12.林瑞霖，少年違規之處理與醞釀中的制度改革－介紹美國社會對少年違規行為的反應與控制，刑事法雜誌，第22卷第6期，頁1-22，1978年12月。13.林端，法律與青少年—從法律社會學看新版「少年事件處理法」，月旦法學雜誌，第40期，頁69-80，1998年8月。14.青少年法庭上的神经科学，知識通訊評論，第115期，頁34-39，2012年5月。15.侯志瑾，儿童心理谘询与治疗的發展与现状，首都师范大学学报，第4期，頁126-132，1996年16.姚建龙，国家亲权理论与少年司法－以美国少年司法为中心的研究，法学杂誌，第3期，頁92-95，2008年。17.赵娟，米兰达规则适用标准的突破与进步－2011年美国联邦最高法院J. D. B.案评析与借鉴，江苏社会科学，第3期，頁121-129，2012年。18.唐麟，J. D. B.诉北卡罗莱纳州：对北卡罗莱纳州高等法院的複审令(上)，预防青少年犯罪研究，第1期，頁83-95，2018年。19.唐麟，J. D. B.诉北卡罗莱纳州：对北卡罗莱纳州高等法院的複审令(下)，预防青少年犯罪研究，第1期，頁88-95，2018年。20.許華孚，社會形塑少年暴力犯為危險他者之運作機制：「代罪羔羊」形象的社會建構，犯罪與刑事司法研究，第12期，頁145-207，2009年3月。21.黃義成，論觸法少年之移送制度，政大法學評論，第147期，頁203-277，2016年12月。22.腾洪昌、姚建龙，少年司法与心理学的整合：一个初步的探讨，中国青年研究，第7期，頁39-47，2017年。23.劉宏恩，「書本中的法律」(Law in Books)與「事實運作中的法律」(Law in Action)，月旦法學，第94期，頁336-341，2003年3月。24.劉宏恩，法律研究的心理學取向－美國的經驗與臺灣現況，法律學刊，第24期，頁151-167，1994年6月。25.謝如媛，少年修復式司法的批判性考察－－從少年的最佳利益到利益衡平？政大法學評論，第152期，頁125-186，2018年3月。26.謝如媛，少年健全成長之概念內涵與法制架構，載：主體、理性與人權的彼岸：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集，台北：新學林，頁287-322，2020年6月。27.謝如媛，修復式司法的現狀與未來，月旦法學雜誌，第118期，頁41-51，2005年3月。28.謝如媛，緩刑的刑事政策意涵：嚴罰趨勢下的寬典？臺大法學論叢，第43卷第4期，頁1609-1664，2014年12月。29.謝煜偉，寬嚴並進刑事政策之省思，月旦法學雜誌，第126期，頁131-157，2005年10月。30.謝煜偉，論少年司法中的被害人參與－日本法制的省思與借鏡，法律扶助與社會，第5期，頁57-79，2020年9月。31.鞠恩霞、李红、龙长权、袁加锦，基于神经成像技术的青少年大脑發育研究，心理科学进展，第18卷第6期，頁907-913，2010年。（三）碩博士論文1.王純逸，我國刑事法少年法定年齡規定之解析，國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文， 2009年7月。2.石家齊，正當法律程序原則在少年事件處理法中之適用，國立台北大學法律學系碩士論文，2011年7月。3.吳佳叡，少年觀護制度之研究：以美、日處遇理念之變化為借鏡，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1997年。4.李慧盈，我國與美國少年司法對虞犯制度之比較－從司法院釋字第六六四號解釋出發，東吳大學法學院法律學系碩士班碩士論文，2014年9月。5.卓雅苹，從貧窮、犯罪與社會排除論少年犯罪問題之研究，國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文，2014年10月。6.邱靖貽，刑法之性管制—以兒童及少年之相關規範為論述中心，國立台灣大學碩士論文，2005年。7.莊宇真，認知神經科學於刑法體系之應用－以證據法為中心，國立交通大學管理學院科技法律研究所碩士論文，2012年6月。8.陳孟萱，少年司法保護制度之契機─以美國少年法制為借鏡，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2001年6月。9.黃鼎軒，少年司法的管轄、搜索與轉向－以美國法制為中心，東吳大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文，頁22，2014年3月。10.廖經晟，少年多樣化處遇之研究－以美國法為中心，國立台灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年7月。11.廖慧儒，少年事件處理程序立法政策之研究－以少年刑事案件處理程序為核心，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2012年7月。12.劉宏恩，心理學取向之法律研究~以住宅搜索、子女監護及婚姻暴力問題為例，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1996年6月。13.潘曉萱，少年感化教育之理念與實踐，國立政治大學法學院法律學系碩士論文，2015年7月。14.蔡育霖，少年保護事件審理與正當法律程序保障－以美日之實踐為借鏡，台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，2002年。15.鄭如鳳，少年司法體系之再建構，銘傳大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文，2010年6月。16.謝如媛，日本現行少年法運用之變化歷程－以非行統制與非行現象之關係為中心，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1996年6月。17.蘇怡嘉，美國死刑爭議與美國例外主義－由 Zimring、Whitman 和Garland 之學說出發，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文， 2012年7月。（四）其它（官方報告、報章雜誌、關係文書、進修報告、網路資料、研討會論文等）1.Jay N. Giedd著，馮澤君譯(2016/7/25)，為什麼年輕人容易衝動？因為他們的大腦在快速變化，每日頭條，網址：https://kknews.cc/science/gbllay.html，最後瀏覽日：2020/12/27。2.司法院，地方法院少年刑事案件裁判結果（附錄特殊罪名統計），網址：file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/sf-7r%20(1).PDF，最後瀏覽日：2020/12/27。3.維基百科，腦電圖，網址：https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%85%A6%E9%9B%BB%E5%9C%96，最後瀏覽日：2020/12/27。二、日文部分（一）期刊及專書論文1.大塚正之「脳科学・神経科学の進歩が少年裁判実務に与える影響」山口直也（編著）『脳科学と少年司法第10章』現代人文社（2019年8月）。2.本庄武「脳科学・神経科学と少年の刑事責任」犯罪社会学研究42号（2017年）。三、英文部分（一）專書1.ALICE BOARDMAN SMUTS (2008), SCIENCE IN THE SERVICE OF CHILDREN, 1893-1935 U.S.: Yale University Press.2.ELIZABETH S. SCOTT & LAURENCE STEINBERG (2008), RETHINKING JUVENILE JUSTICE, MA: Harvard University Press.3.ERICH GOODE & NACHMAN BEN-YEHUDA (2d ed. 2009), MORAL PANICS: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DEVIANCE, NJ: Willey-Blackwell.4.LORI DORFMAN & VINCENT SCHIRALDI (2001), OFF BALANCE: YOUTH, RACE, & CRIME IN THE NEWS, DC: Justice Policy Institute.5.LYNN COTHERN, JUVENILES AND THE DEATH PENALTY (2002), U.S.: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.6.NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (2013), REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE: A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH, DC: The National Academies Press.7.PHILIPPE ARIES (ROBERT BALDICK TRANS. 1962), CENTURIES OF CHILDHOOD: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF FAMILY LIFE, NY: Random House Press.（二）期刊及專書論文1.Adriana Galvan et al., Earlier Development of the Accumbens Relative to Orbitofrontal Cortex Might Underlie Risk-taking Behavior in Adolescents, 26(25) The Journal of Neuroscience 6885 (2006).2.Adriana Galvan et al., Risk-taking and the Adolescent Brain: Who is at Risk?, 10(2) Developmental Science F8 (2007).3.Amanda Guyer et al., A Developmental Examination of Amygdala Response to Facial Expressions, 20(9) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1565 (2008).4.ames C. Howell, Juvenile Transfers to the Criminal Justice System: State of the Art, 18 Law & Policy 17 (1996).5.Andreaa Knox, Blakely and Blended Sentencing: A Constitutional Challenge to Sentencing Child “Criminals”, 70 OHIO ST. L.J. 1261 (2009).6.Anne Bowker et al., Coping with Daily Hassles in the Peer Group During Early Adolescence: Variations as a Function of Peer Experience, 10(2) Journal of Research on Adolescence 211 (2000).7.Arthur W. Toga, Paul M. Thompson & Elizabeth R. Sowell, Mapping Brain Maturation, 29(3) Trends in Neurosciences 148 (2006).8.B. J. Casey & Rebecca M. Jones, Neurobiology of the Adolescent Brain and Behavior: Implications for Substance Use Disorders, 49(12) Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 1189 (2010).9.B. J. Casey et al., The Adolescent Brain, 1124 ANNALs N.Y. ACAD. SCI. 111 (2008).10.B. J. Casey, Rebecca M. Jones & Leah H. Somerville, Braking and Accelerating of the Adolescent Brain, 21(1) Journal of Research on Adolescence 21 (2011).11.Barry C. Feld, Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy, 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 68 (1997).12.Barry C. Feld, The Transformation of the Juvenile Court, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 691 (1990).13.Barry C. Feld, Unmitigated Punishment: Adolescent Criminal Responsibility and LWOP Sentences, 10 J. Law & Family Studies 11 (2007).14.Beatriz Luna & John A. Sweeney, The Emergence of Collaborative Brain Function: fMRI Studies of the Development of Response Inhibition, 1021(1) ANNALS N.Y. AcAD. Sci. 296 (2004).15.Bernd Figner et al., Affective and Deliberative Processes in Risky Choice: Age Differences in Risk Taking in the Columbia Card Task, 35(3) Journal of Experimental Psychology 709 (2009).16.Bregtje Gunther Moor, B. et al., Social Exclusion and Punishment of Excluders: Neural Correlates and Developmental Trajectories, 59(1) Neuroimage 708 ( 2012).17.C. Antoinette Clarke, The Baby and the Bathwater: Adolescent Offending and Punitive Juvenile Justice Reform, 53 U. KAN. L. REV. 659 (2004).18.Catherine A. Martin et al., Sensation Seeking, Puberty, and Nicotine, Alcohol, and Marijuana Use in Adolescence, 41(12) Journal of Amer Academy of Child & Adolescent 1495 (2002).19.Christina Dejong & Eve Schwitzer Merrill, Getting “Tough on Crime”: Juvenile Waiver and the Criminal Court, 27 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 175 (2001).20.Christopher S. Monk et al., Adolescent Immaturity in Attentionrelated Brain Engagement to Emotional Facial Expressions, 20(1) Neuroimage 420 (2003).21.Christopher Slobogin & Mark R. Fondacaro, Juvenile Justice: The Fourth Option, 95 IowA L. REv. 1 (2009).22.Daniel P. Keating, Richard M. Lerner & Laurence Steinberg (2004), Cognitive and Brain Development, in Richard M. Lerner & Laurence Steinberg 2nd ed., Handbook of adolescent psychology (New Jersey: Wiley).23.David L. Myers, The Recidivism of Violent Youths in Juvenile and Adult Court: A Consideration of Selection Bias, 1 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 79 (2003).24.David O. Brink, Immaturity, Normative Competence, and Juvenile Transfer How (Not) to Punish Minors for Major Crimes, 82 TEX. L. REv. 1555 (2004).25.David P. Farrington (1983), Offending From Ten to Twenty-five Years of Age, in Katherine Teilmann Van Dusen & Sarnoff A. Mednick eds., Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency (Germany: Springer Netherlands).26.David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber & James C. Howell, Young Adult Offenders: The Need for more Effective Legislative Options and justice Processing, 11(4) Criminology & Public Policy 729 (2012).27.Denis Le Bihan et al., Diffusion Tensor Imaging: Concepts and Applications, 13(4) Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 534 (2001).28.Donna M. Bishop, Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System, 27 Crime and Justice 81 (2000).29.Dustin Albert & Laurence Steinbetg (2011), Peer Influences on Adolescent Risk Behavior, in Inhibitory Control and Drug Abuse Prevention, in Michael T. Bardo, Diana H. Fishbein & Richard Milich eds., Inhibitory control and drug abuse prevention (NY: Springer).30.Elizabeth A. Phelps & Laura A. Thomas, Race, Behavior, and the Brain: The Role of Neuroimaging in Understanding Complex Social Behaviors, 24(4) POL. PSYCHOL. 747 (2003).31.Elizabeth Cauffman & Laurence Steinberg, Emerging Findings From Research on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 7(4) Victims & Offenders 428 (2012).32.Elizabeth Cauffman et al., Age Differences in Affective Decision Making as Indexed by Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, 46(1) Developmental Psychology 193 (2010).33.Elizabeth Cauffman, Laurence Steinberg & Alex R. Piquero, Psychological, Neuropsychological and Physiological Correlates of Serious Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence: The Role of Self‐Control, 43(1) Criminology 133 (2005).34.Elizabeth R. Sowell et al., Development of Cortical and Subcortical Brain Structures in Childhood and Adolescence: A Structural MRI Study, 44 Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 4 (2002).35.Elizabeth R. Sowell et al., Longitudinal Mapping of Cortical Thickness and Brain Growth in Normal Children, 24 Journal of Neuroscience 8223 (2004).36.Elizabeth S. Scott & Laurence Steinberg, Social Welfare and Fairness in Juvenile Crime Regulation, 71 La. L. Rev. 35 (2010).37.Emily Buss, Rethinking the Connection Between Developmental Science and Juvenile Justice, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 493 (2009).38.Eric Courchesne et al., Normal Brain Development and Aging: Quantitative Analysis at in Vivo MR Imaging in Healthy Volunteers, 216(3) Radiology 672 (2000).39.Frederick Schauer, Neuroscience, Lie-detection, and the Law: Contrary to the Prevailing View, the Suitability of Brain-based Lie-detection for Courtroom or Forensic Use Should be Determined According to Legal and Not Scientific Standards, 14(3) Trends in Cognitive Sciences 101 (2010).40.Grace Icenogle, et al., Adolescents’ Cognitive Capacity Reaches Adult Levels Prior to Their Psychosocial Maturity: Evidence for a “Maturity Gap” in a Multinational, Cross-sectional Sample, 43(1) Law and Human Behavior 69 (2019).41.Greenberger, E., Education and the Acquisition of Psychosocial Maturity, The Development of Social Maturity 155 (1982).42.James M. Bjork et al., Incentive-elicited Brain Activation in Adolescents: Similarities and Differences From Young Adults, 24(8) The Journal of Neuroscience 1793 (2004).43.Jane B. Sprott, Understanding Public Opposition to a Separate Juvenile System, 44 Crime & Delinquency 399 (2001).44.Jari-Erik Nurmi, How Do Adolescents See Their Future? A Review of the Development of Future Orientation and Planning, 11(1) Developmental Review 1 (1991).45.Jason Chein et al., Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking by Enhancing Activity in the Brain`s Reward Circuitry, 14(2) Developmental Science F1 (2011).46.Jay D. Aronson, Brain Imaging, Culpability and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 13(2) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 115 (2007).47.Jay D. Aronson, Neuroscience and Juvenile Justice, 42 AKRoN L. REv. 917 (2009).48.Jay N. Giedd et al., Brain Development During Childhood and Adolescence: A Longitudinal MRI Study, 2(10) Nature Neuroscience 861 (1999).49.Jay N. Giedd, Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Adolescent Brain, 1021(1) ANNALs N.Y. AcAD. Sci. 77 (2004).50.Jay N. Giedd, The Teen Brain: Insights From Neuroimaging, 42(4) Journal of Adolescent Health 335 (2008).51.Jeffrey Fagan, Context and Culpability in Adolescent Crime, 6 Va. J. Soc. Pol`y & L. 507 (1998).52.Jeffrey Fagan, The Comparative Advantage of Juvenile Versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders, 18 Law & Policy 77 (1996).53.Jens Ludwig, Greg J. Duncan & Paul Hirschfield, Urban poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence From a Randomized Housing-mobility Experiment, 116(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 655 (2001).54.John Dilulio, The Coming of the Super-predators, 1(11) WKLY. STANDARD 23 (1995).55.John M. Fabian, Applying Roper v. Simmons in Juvenile Transfer and Waiver Proceedings: A Legal and Neuroscientific Inquiry, 55 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 732 (2011).56.John R. Mills, Anna Dorn & Amelia Hritz, Juvenile Life Without Parole in Law and Practice: The End of Superpredator Era Sentencing, 65 American University Law Review 535 (2015).57.Jon Snodgrass, William Healy (1869‐1963): Pioneer Child Psychiatrist and Criminologist, 20(4) Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 332 (1984).58.Kristan G. Erickson, Robert Crosnoe & Sanford M. Dornbusch, A Social Process Model of Adolescent Deviance: Combining Social Control and Differential Association Perspectives, 29(4) Journal of Youth and Adolescence 395 (2000).59.Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, Adolescents as Adults in Court: A Developmental Perspective on the Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court, 15 Social Policy Report 1 (2001).60.Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth S. Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58(12) American Psychologist 1009 (2003).61.Laurence Steinberg & Susan B. Silverberg, The Vicissitudes of Autonomy in Early Adolescence, 57(4) Child Development 841 (1986).62.Laurence Steinberg et al., Age Differences in Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity as Indexed by Behavior and Self-report: Evidence for a Dual Systems Model, 44(6) Developmental psychology 1764 (2008).63.Laurence Steinberg et al., Are Adolescents Less Mature than Adults?: Minors` Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA" Flip-flop.", 64(7) American Psychologist 583 (2009).64.Laurence Steinberg et al., Are Adolescents Mature than Adults? Minors’ Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA “Flip-flop”, 64(7) American Psychologist 583 (2009).65.Laurence Steinberg, A Dual Systems Model of Adolescent Risk-taking, 52(3) Developmental Psychobiology 216 (2010).66.Laurence Steinberg, Risk Taking in Adolescence: What Changes, and Why?, 1021(1) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 51 (2004).67.Laurence Steinberg, The Influence of Neuroscience on US Supreme Court Decisions About Adolescents` Criminal Culpability, 14(7) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 513 (2013).68.Linda P. Spear, The Adolescent Brain and Age-Related Behavioral Manifestations, 24(4) Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 417 (2000).69.Linda Van Leijenhorst et al., Adolescent Risky Decision-Making: Neurocognitive Development of Reward and Control Regions, 51(1) Neuroimage 345 (2010).70.Linda Van Leijenhorst et al., What Motivates the Adolescent? Brain Regions Mediating Reward Sensitivity Across Adolescence, 20(1) Cerebral Cortex 61 (2010).71.Lisa Ells, Juvenile Psychopathy: The Hollow Promise of Prediction, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 158 (2005).72.Lizzie Buchen, Science in Court: Arrested Development, 484 Nature 304 (2012).73.Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: an Experimental Study, 41(4) Developmental Psychology 625 (2005).74.Mark R. Fondacaro, Christopher Slobogin & Tricia Cross, Reconceptualizing Due Process in Juvenile Justice: Contributions From Law and Social Science, 57 Hastings LJ 955 (2005).75.Mark R. Fondacaro, Rethinking the Scientific and Legal Implications of Developmental Differences Research in Juvenile Justice, 17(3) New Criminal Law Review 407 (2014).76.Mark W. Lipsey (1995), What Do We Learn from 400 Research Studies on the Effectiveness of Treatment with Juvenile Delinquents?, in Fredrich Lösel & James McGuire eds., What Works: Reducing Reoffending (NJ: John Wiley & Sons).77.Mark W. Lipsey, Gabrielle L. Chapman & Nana A. Landenberger, Cognitive-behavioral Programs for Offenders, 578 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & Soc. SCI. 144 (2001).78.Michelle Leighton & Connie De La Vega, Sentencing Our Children To Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice, 42 U.S.F.L.Rev. 983 (2008).79.Nitin Gogtay et al., Dynamic Mapping of Human Cortical Development During Childhood and Adolescence, 101(21) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 8174 (2004).80.P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale et al., Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: A unique Research Opportunity, 27(6) Dev. Psychol. 918 (1991).81.Paolo Annino, David W. Rasmussen & Chelsea B. Rice, Juvenile Life Without Parole for Non–homicide Offenses: Florida Compared to Nation, 399 FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper (2009).82.Peter J. Benekos & Alida V. Merlo, A Decade of Change: Roper v. Simmons, Defending Childhood, and Juvenile Justice Policy, 30(1) Criminal Justice Policy Review 102 (2019).83.Philip Shaw et al., Neurodevelopmental Trajectories of the Human Cerebral Cortex, 28(14) Journal of Neuroscience 3586 (2008).84.Rachel Jacobs, Waving Goodbye to Due Process: The Juvenile Waiver System, 19 Cardozo JL & Gender 989 (2013).85.Richard E. Redding, How Common-sense Psychology Can Inform Law and Psycholegal Research, 5 U. CHI. L. ScH. ROUNDTABLE 107 (1998).86.Ronald E. Dahl, Biological, Developmental, and Neurobehavioral Factors Relevant to Adolescent Driving Risks, 35(3) American Journal of Preventive Medicine S278 (2008).87.Sarah-Jayne Blakemore & Suparna Choudhury, Development of the Adolescent Brain: Implications for Executive Function and Social Cognition, 47 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 296 (2006).88.Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, The Social Brain in Adolescence, 9(4) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 267 (2008).89.Scott W. Henggeler, Gary B. Melton & Linda A. Smith, Family Preservation Using Multisystemic Therapy: An Effective Alternative to Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders, 60 J. CONSULTING & CLINICAL PSYCHOL. 953 (1992).90.Stephen J. Morse, Brain Overclaim Redux, 31 Law & Ineq 509 (2012).91.Stephen J. Morse, Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note, 3 OHIo ST. J. CRIM. L. 397 (2006).92.Susan R. Bell, Ohio Gets Tough on Juvenile Crime: An Analysis of Ohio’s 1996 Amendments Concerning the Bindover of Violent Juvenile Offenders to the Adult System and Related Legislation, 66 U. CIN. L. REV. 207 (1997).93.Teneille Brown & Emily Murphy, Through a Scanner Darkly-functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant`s Past Mental States, 62 STAN. L. REv. 1119 (2010).94.Terrie E. Moffitt, Adolescence–limited and Life–course–persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy, 100(4) Psychological Rev. 674 (1993).95.Terry A. Maroney, The False Promise of Adolescent Brain Science in Juvenile Justice, 85 Notre Dame L. Rev. 89 (2009).96.Thomas Grisso & Antoinette Kavanaugh, Prospects for Developmental Evidence in Juvenile Sentencing Based on Miller v. Alabama, 22(3) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 235 (2016).97.Thomas Grisso et al., Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents’ and Adults’ Capacities as Trial Defendants, 27(4) Law and Human Behavior 333 (2003).98.Thomas Grisso, The Competence of Adolescents as Trial Defendants, 3 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3 (1997).99.Thomas J. Berndt, Developmental Changes in Conformity to Peers and Parents, 15(6) Developmental Psychology 608 (1979).100.Valerie F. Reyna & Frank Farley, Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy, 7(1) Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1 (2006).（三）其它1.Amanda Petteruti et al. (2009), The Cost of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, Available at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_pS.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).2.American Psychological Association (1989), Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 497 U.S. 502 (1990) and Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), Available at: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ohio.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).3.American Psychological Association (2004), Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Available at: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).4.David Prior et al. (2011), Maturity, Young Adults and Criminal Justice: A Literature Review, Availabe at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Maturity-final-literature-review-report.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).5.Elizabeth S. Scott, et al. (2015), The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing, Available at: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/The_Supreme_Court_and_the_Transformation_of_Juvenile_Sentencing%20%281%29.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).6.Human Rights Watch (2005), The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/AbstractDB/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=262831 (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).7.Kathleen Maguire & Ann L. Pastore (1998), Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/711233%20(2).pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).8.Mark Moran (2003), Adolescent Brain Development Argues Against Teen Executions, Available at: https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.38.10.0008 (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).9.Michele Deitch et al. (2009), From Time Out to Hard Time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Available at: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/publications/2009-From-Time-Out-to-Hard-Time-Young-Children-in-the-Adult-Criminal-Justice-System/download (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).10.Neelum Arya (2007), Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America, Available at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-Jailing_Juveniles_Report_2007-11-15.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).11.Steve Aos (2002), The Juvenile Justice System in Washington State: Recommendations to Improve Cost-effectiveness, Available at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/WhatWorksJuv.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).12.Steve Aos, Marna Miller Elizabeth Drake (2006), Evidence-based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates, Available at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/952/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Public-Policy-Options-to-Reduce-Future-Prison-Construction-Criminal-Justice-Costs-and-Crime-Rates_Full-Report.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).13.Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice (2009), Charting A New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State, Available at: https://www.vera.org/publications/charting-a-new-course-a-blueprint-for-transforming-juvenile-justice-in-new-york-state (last visited Dec. 27, 2020). 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
104652018資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1046520183 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 謝如媛 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsieh, Ju-Yuan en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 胡孟郁 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Hu, Meng-Yu en_US dc.creator (作者) 胡孟郁 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hu, Meng-Yu en_US dc.date (日期) 2021 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-三月-2021 14:38:37 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-三月-2021 14:38:37 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-三月-2021 14:38:37 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G1046520183 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134110 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律科際整合研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 104652018 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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。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。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。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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.In 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.As 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. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭 I摘要 IIIAbstract IV目錄 VI圖表目錄 XII第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1第二節 研究範圍與研究方法 3第三節 名詞定義 4第一項 少年的定義 4第一款 生理學觀點 4第二款 心理學觀點 5第三款 社會學觀點 5第四款 法律觀點 6第五款 本文觀點 6第四節 論文架構 7第二章 美國少年法的歷史演進 10第一節 少年法院之誕生 11第一項 少年概念的誕生 11第二項 少年法院之理念 13第一款 國親思想 14第二款 個別化處遇 16第二節 少年形象之轉變與少年司法的互動 17第一項 1960年代到1970年代－修正的保護主義 18第一款 社會背景 18第二款 具體改革 20第三款 逐漸朝嚴罰化過渡 21第二項 1970年代至2000年以前－嚴罰主義的開展 22第一款 社會背景 22第二款 具體改革 23第三款 兩極化刑事政策下的虞犯少年 25第四款 修復式司法的引入 27第五款 暴力少年形象的過度渲染 29第三項 小結 31第三節 2000後的美國少年司法趨勢 32第一項 反對嚴罰化的學術思潮 32第二項 2000年後美國聯邦最高法院的動向 33第三章 對美國少年司法產生重要影響之判決評析 37第一節 美國少年案件適用死刑之狀況 37第一項 死刑制度的概觀 38第二項 美國最高法院處理少年犯死刑案件立場 40第一款 Thompson v. Oklahoma案 40第二款 Stanford v. Kentucky案 41第三款 In re Stanford案 42第三項 Atkins v. Virginia判決主旨及理由 42第二節 Roper v. Simmons案 44第一項 背景事實 45第二項 判決內容 46第一款 多數意見 46一、 憲法第8條修正案「殘酷且異常」之意義 46二、 美國已形成廢除少年犯死刑之共識 47三、 少年與成人的發展差異 47四、 國際公約禁止對少年犯適用死刑 50第二款 協同意見書（Stevens大法官主筆） 51第三款 不同意見書（O`Connor大法官主筆） 51一、 尚未形成廢除少年犯死刑的全國共識 51二、 少年與智能障礙者的差異 52第四款 不同意見書（Scalia大法官主筆） 53一、 並不存在廢除少年犯死刑的全國共識 53二、 拒絕援引國際條約或外國法律作為判決之依據 53三、 質疑科學證據的可靠性及有效性 53第三項 判決評析 54第三節 Graham v. Florida案 56第一項 背景事實 56第二項 判決內容 59第一款 多數意見 59一、 是否可以在非死刑案件中針對年齡創造類型化規則 59二、 沿用Roper案關於少年性質的看法 61三、 罪刑相當的質疑 61四、 無法達成刑罰制裁所欲達成之目的 62五、 採取類型化規則的理由 63六、 外國立法例 64第二款 協同意見書(Roberts大法官主筆) 65一、 創設類型化規則的理由不夠充足 65二、 少年犯的年齡與刑罰有關 66第三款 不同意見書(Thomas大法官主筆) 67一、 憲法第8條修正案並未禁止量刑不相稱 67二、 全國共識並不存在 67三、 仍可對部分少年處以終身監禁不得假釋 68第三項 判決評析 69第四節 J. D. B. v. North Carolina案 69第一項 背景事實 70第二項 判決內容 70第一款 多數意見 71一、 回顧先例 71二、 拘留狀態的分析應考量未成年人的年齡 72三、 反駁原審判決 73第二款 不同意見書(由Alito大法官主筆) 75一、 回顧先例及米蘭達規則的確立 75二、 破壞米蘭達規則的清晰性和確定性 77三、 未成年人的年齡難以判斷 78四、 現行法律即可保障未成年人的權利 80第三項 判決評析 81第五節 Miller v. Alabama案 82第一項 背景事實 82第二項 判決內容 83第一款 多數意見 84一、 採取類型化規則的理由 84二、 針對強制性量刑規則的質疑 85三、 回應來自州的質疑 87第二款 不同意見書(Roberts大法官主筆) 89第三項 判決評析 91第六節 發展科學及神經科學對聯邦最高法院的影響 93第四章 少年司法與發展心理學及神經科學 96第一節 發展心理學、神經科學和少年司法的交會 96第一項 心理學介入少年司法的緣起與發展 97第二項 發展心理學與少年司法 99第三項 神經科學技術的突破 100第二節 發展心理學及神經科學的相關研究成果 103第一項 青少年的大腦發展 103第一款 青少年大腦白質的發育模式 104第二款 青少年大腦灰質的發育模式 104第三款 青少年前額葉及邊緣系統的發育 106第二項 青少年的心理發展與決策 107第一款 前言 107第二款 認知能力 109第三款 心理社會成熟度 110一、 同儕影響 110二、 風險評估 111三、 未來導向 112四、 自我管理 113五、 獎賞激勵 114第三項 認知能力和心理社會成熟度發展的不平衡 115第三節 發展觀點下的少年刑事責任 118第一項 少年刑事責任減輕的依據 118第一款 減輕和免責 118第二款 減輕在刑法中扮演的角色 119一、 意思決定能力減損和減輕 121二、 青春期面臨的情境與減輕 122三、 發展、性格和罪責 123第二項 以發展為基礎的少年司法模式 124第一款 青少年的發展特性 124第二款 發展模式的理論背景 125第三款 以應報作為管控少年犯罪的限制適用原則 128第五章 發展心理學及神經科學的具體應用與檢討 130第一節 發展心理學及神經科學於少年司法的具體應用 131第一項 緘默權 131第二項 少年移送制度 135第一款 美國少年移送制度之缺失 136一、 背離國家親權原則 136二、 刑事程序及處遇對少年有害 136三、 無法降低少年犯再犯、威懾不起作用 137四、 受審能力不足 138第二款 Kent案所提出的8項審查標準 139第三款 立法上的選擇 140第二節 管轄範圍與處遇內容的檢討 141第一項 以發展心理學為基礎的處遇計畫 141第二項 擴張少年法院處遇的管轄範圍 142第三節 檢討發展模式下的少年刑事責任 144第一項 論證上的批判 144第二項 以「成熟程度」作為刑事責任標準的疑慮 146第四節 發展科學與神經科學證據在法庭上應用的侷限 148第五節 小結 156第六章 結論 160參考文獻 165 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2344604 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1046520183 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 少年責任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 健全成長 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 發展心理學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 神經科學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 保護優先主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Juvenile responsibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Healthy growth en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Developmental psychology en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Neuroscience en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) the Principle of the priority of protection en_US dc.title (題名) 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 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Intersection of Juvenile Justice and Developmental Psychology and Neuroscience- Lessons from the U.S. Supreme Court Cases en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分（依姓氏筆劃）（一）專書1.Laurence M. Friedman著，劉宏恩、王敏銓譯，美國法律史，台北：聯經，2016年8月。2.Laurence Steinberg著，蕭寶森譯，不是青春惹的禍：了解10~25歲孩子的大腦潛能，成功從教養開始，天下生活出版社，2015年6月。3.Laurence Steinberg著，戴俊毅譯，青春期：青少年的心理發展和健康成長，第七版，上海社會科學院出版社，2007年5月。4.Neil Postman著，蕭昭君譯，童年的消逝，台北：遠流，2004年。5.司法院司法行政廳，中美日三國死刑制度之比較研究，司法改革年報，第十七輯第十一篇，1997年6月。6.余漢儀，兒童虐待：現象解釋與問題反思，台北：巨流，1995年。7.林紀東，少年事件處理法論，台北：黎明文化，1978年。8.林清祥，少年事件處理法研究，台北：黎明文化，1987年。9.林雅鋒、嚴祖照，少年司法的理論與實務－從國際公約人權規範的角度出發，台北：新學林，2020年3月。10.罗跃嘉等，认知神经科学教程，北京：北京大学出版社，2006年1月。11.姚建龙，超越刑事司法美国少年史纲，法律出版社，2009年。12.茹立强、王才源、殷光甫等，神经科学基础，北京：清华大学，2004年。13.顾凡及、梁培基，神经信息处理，北京：北京工业大学，2007年10月。14.張廼良，美國少年法制之研究，台北：中央文物，1983年。15.郭靜晃、黃明發，發展心理學，新北：揚智文化，2013年。16.黃德祥，青少年發展與輔導，台北：五南，1994年。17.瑪格麗特.K.羅森海姆,富蘭克林.E.齊姆林,戴維.S.坦嫩豪斯,伯納德.多恩編，高維儉譯，少年司法的一個世紀，1版，北京商務印書館，2008年5月。18.趙雍生，社會變遷下的少年偏差與犯罪，台北：桂冠，1997年。19.劉玉玲，青少年發展－危機與轉機，台北：揚智文化，2005年。20.蔡德輝、楊士隆著，少年犯罪-理論與實務，5版一刷，台北：五南，2013年3月。21.蘇建文等，發展心理學，台北：桂冠，1998年。（二）期刊及專書論文1.Jay N. Giedd著，謝伯讓譯，躍動的青春期大腦，科學人雜誌，第161期，頁36-41，2015年7月。2.王玉葉，美國死刑制度的演進：Roper v. Simmons案廢除少年犯死刑之意義，歐美研究，第39卷第4期，頁571-614，2009年12月。3.刘兆敏、张琼琳，青少年脑發育的神经法学研究与应用，心理發展与教育，第6期，頁656-663，2014年。4.朱惠英，觸法少年的司法心理評估，司法研究年報，第24輯第9篇，2004年。5.何賴傑，少年保護程序與證據法則，載：民主、人權、正義－蘇俊雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，台北：元照，頁317-334，2005年。6.李茂生，八四年版少事法草案起草經過及評釋（下），刑事法雜誌，第40卷第1期，頁44-68，1996年2月。7.李茂生，少年犯罪的預防與矯治制度的批判－一個系統論的考察，台大法學論叢，第29卷第2期，頁79-174，2000年1月。8.李茂生，我國少年事件處理法的檢討與展望－以刑事司法與福利行政兩系統的交錯為論點，月旦法學雜誌，第74期，頁30-50，2001年7月。9.李茂生，新少年事件處理法的立法基本策略—後現代法秩序序說，台大法學論叢，第28卷第2期，頁141-228，1999年。10.李茂生，釋字第六六四號解釋評釋--憲法的顢頇與天真，臺灣法學雜誌，第137期，頁31-40，2009年10月。11.李銘杰、賈凡逸、陳怡君，何謂法律科際整合，載：邁向科際整合的法學研究，台北：政大法學院，頁65-82，2013年6月。12.林瑞霖，少年違規之處理與醞釀中的制度改革－介紹美國社會對少年違規行為的反應與控制，刑事法雜誌，第22卷第6期，頁1-22，1978年12月。13.林端，法律與青少年—從法律社會學看新版「少年事件處理法」，月旦法學雜誌，第40期，頁69-80，1998年8月。14.青少年法庭上的神经科学，知識通訊評論，第115期，頁34-39，2012年5月。15.侯志瑾，儿童心理谘询与治疗的發展与现状，首都师范大学学报，第4期，頁126-132，1996年16.姚建龙，国家亲权理论与少年司法－以美国少年司法为中心的研究，法学杂誌，第3期，頁92-95，2008年。17.赵娟，米兰达规则适用标准的突破与进步－2011年美国联邦最高法院J. D. B.案评析与借鉴，江苏社会科学，第3期，頁121-129，2012年。18.唐麟，J. D. B.诉北卡罗莱纳州：对北卡罗莱纳州高等法院的複审令(上)，预防青少年犯罪研究，第1期，頁83-95，2018年。19.唐麟，J. D. B.诉北卡罗莱纳州：对北卡罗莱纳州高等法院的複审令(下)，预防青少年犯罪研究，第1期，頁88-95，2018年。20.許華孚，社會形塑少年暴力犯為危險他者之運作機制：「代罪羔羊」形象的社會建構，犯罪與刑事司法研究，第12期，頁145-207，2009年3月。21.黃義成，論觸法少年之移送制度，政大法學評論，第147期，頁203-277，2016年12月。22.腾洪昌、姚建龙，少年司法与心理学的整合：一个初步的探讨，中国青年研究，第7期，頁39-47，2017年。23.劉宏恩，「書本中的法律」(Law in Books)與「事實運作中的法律」(Law in Action)，月旦法學，第94期，頁336-341，2003年3月。24.劉宏恩，法律研究的心理學取向－美國的經驗與臺灣現況，法律學刊，第24期，頁151-167，1994年6月。25.謝如媛，少年修復式司法的批判性考察－－從少年的最佳利益到利益衡平？政大法學評論，第152期，頁125-186，2018年3月。26.謝如媛，少年健全成長之概念內涵與法制架構，載：主體、理性與人權的彼岸：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集，台北：新學林，頁287-322，2020年6月。27.謝如媛，修復式司法的現狀與未來，月旦法學雜誌，第118期，頁41-51，2005年3月。28.謝如媛，緩刑的刑事政策意涵：嚴罰趨勢下的寬典？臺大法學論叢，第43卷第4期，頁1609-1664，2014年12月。29.謝煜偉，寬嚴並進刑事政策之省思，月旦法學雜誌，第126期，頁131-157，2005年10月。30.謝煜偉，論少年司法中的被害人參與－日本法制的省思與借鏡，法律扶助與社會，第5期，頁57-79，2020年9月。31.鞠恩霞、李红、龙长权、袁加锦，基于神经成像技术的青少年大脑發育研究，心理科学进展，第18卷第6期，頁907-913，2010年。（三）碩博士論文1.王純逸，我國刑事法少年法定年齡規定之解析，國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文， 2009年7月。2.石家齊，正當法律程序原則在少年事件處理法中之適用，國立台北大學法律學系碩士論文，2011年7月。3.吳佳叡，少年觀護制度之研究：以美、日處遇理念之變化為借鏡，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1997年。4.李慧盈，我國與美國少年司法對虞犯制度之比較－從司法院釋字第六六四號解釋出發，東吳大學法學院法律學系碩士班碩士論文，2014年9月。5.卓雅苹，從貧窮、犯罪與社會排除論少年犯罪問題之研究，國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文，2014年10月。6.邱靖貽，刑法之性管制—以兒童及少年之相關規範為論述中心，國立台灣大學碩士論文，2005年。7.莊宇真，認知神經科學於刑法體系之應用－以證據法為中心，國立交通大學管理學院科技法律研究所碩士論文，2012年6月。8.陳孟萱，少年司法保護制度之契機─以美國少年法制為借鏡，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2001年6月。9.黃鼎軒，少年司法的管轄、搜索與轉向－以美國法制為中心，東吳大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文，頁22，2014年3月。10.廖經晟，少年多樣化處遇之研究－以美國法為中心，國立台灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年7月。11.廖慧儒，少年事件處理程序立法政策之研究－以少年刑事案件處理程序為核心，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2012年7月。12.劉宏恩，心理學取向之法律研究~以住宅搜索、子女監護及婚姻暴力問題為例，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1996年6月。13.潘曉萱，少年感化教育之理念與實踐，國立政治大學法學院法律學系碩士論文，2015年7月。14.蔡育霖，少年保護事件審理與正當法律程序保障－以美日之實踐為借鏡，台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，2002年。15.鄭如鳳，少年司法體系之再建構，銘傳大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文，2010年6月。16.謝如媛，日本現行少年法運用之變化歷程－以非行統制與非行現象之關係為中心，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1996年6月。17.蘇怡嘉，美國死刑爭議與美國例外主義－由 Zimring、Whitman 和Garland 之學說出發，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文， 2012年7月。（四）其它（官方報告、報章雜誌、關係文書、進修報告、網路資料、研討會論文等）1.Jay N. Giedd著，馮澤君譯(2016/7/25)，為什麼年輕人容易衝動？因為他們的大腦在快速變化，每日頭條，網址：https://kknews.cc/science/gbllay.html，最後瀏覽日：2020/12/27。2.司法院，地方法院少年刑事案件裁判結果（附錄特殊罪名統計），網址：file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/sf-7r%20(1).PDF，最後瀏覽日：2020/12/27。3.維基百科，腦電圖，網址：https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%85%A6%E9%9B%BB%E5%9C%96，最後瀏覽日：2020/12/27。二、日文部分（一）期刊及專書論文1.大塚正之「脳科学・神経科学の進歩が少年裁判実務に与える影響」山口直也（編著）『脳科学と少年司法第10章』現代人文社（2019年8月）。2.本庄武「脳科学・神経科学と少年の刑事責任」犯罪社会学研究42号（2017年）。三、英文部分（一）專書1.ALICE BOARDMAN SMUTS (2008), SCIENCE IN THE SERVICE OF CHILDREN, 1893-1935 U.S.: Yale University Press.2.ELIZABETH S. SCOTT & LAURENCE STEINBERG (2008), RETHINKING JUVENILE JUSTICE, MA: Harvard University Press.3.ERICH GOODE & NACHMAN BEN-YEHUDA (2d ed. 2009), MORAL PANICS: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DEVIANCE, NJ: Willey-Blackwell.4.LORI DORFMAN & VINCENT SCHIRALDI (2001), OFF BALANCE: YOUTH, RACE, & CRIME IN THE NEWS, DC: Justice Policy Institute.5.LYNN COTHERN, JUVENILES AND THE DEATH PENALTY (2002), U.S.: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.6.NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (2013), REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE: A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH, DC: The National Academies Press.7.PHILIPPE ARIES (ROBERT BALDICK TRANS. 1962), CENTURIES OF CHILDHOOD: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF FAMILY LIFE, NY: Random House Press.（二）期刊及專書論文1.Adriana Galvan et al., Earlier Development of the Accumbens Relative to Orbitofrontal Cortex Might Underlie Risk-taking Behavior in Adolescents, 26(25) The Journal of Neuroscience 6885 (2006).2.Adriana Galvan et al., Risk-taking and the Adolescent Brain: Who is at Risk?, 10(2) Developmental Science F8 (2007).3.Amanda Guyer et al., A Developmental Examination of Amygdala Response to Facial Expressions, 20(9) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1565 (2008).4.ames C. Howell, Juvenile Transfers to the Criminal Justice System: State of the Art, 18 Law & Policy 17 (1996).5.Andreaa Knox, Blakely and Blended Sentencing: A Constitutional Challenge to Sentencing Child “Criminals”, 70 OHIO ST. L.J. 1261 (2009).6.Anne Bowker et al., Coping with Daily Hassles in the Peer Group During Early Adolescence: Variations as a Function of Peer Experience, 10(2) Journal of Research on Adolescence 211 (2000).7.Arthur W. Toga, Paul M. Thompson & Elizabeth R. Sowell, Mapping Brain Maturation, 29(3) Trends in Neurosciences 148 (2006).8.B. J. Casey & Rebecca M. Jones, Neurobiology of the Adolescent Brain and Behavior: Implications for Substance Use Disorders, 49(12) Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 1189 (2010).9.B. J. Casey et al., The Adolescent Brain, 1124 ANNALs N.Y. ACAD. SCI. 111 (2008).10.B. J. Casey, Rebecca M. Jones & Leah H. Somerville, Braking and Accelerating of the Adolescent Brain, 21(1) Journal of Research on Adolescence 21 (2011).11.Barry C. Feld, Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy, 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 68 (1997).12.Barry C. Feld, The Transformation of the Juvenile Court, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 691 (1990).13.Barry C. Feld, Unmitigated Punishment: Adolescent Criminal Responsibility and LWOP Sentences, 10 J. Law & Family Studies 11 (2007).14.Beatriz Luna & John A. Sweeney, The Emergence of Collaborative Brain Function: fMRI Studies of the Development of Response Inhibition, 1021(1) ANNALS N.Y. AcAD. Sci. 296 (2004).15.Bernd Figner et al., Affective and Deliberative Processes in Risky Choice: Age Differences in Risk Taking in the Columbia Card Task, 35(3) Journal of Experimental Psychology 709 (2009).16.Bregtje Gunther Moor, B. et al., Social Exclusion and Punishment of Excluders: Neural Correlates and Developmental Trajectories, 59(1) Neuroimage 708 ( 2012).17.C. Antoinette Clarke, The Baby and the Bathwater: Adolescent Offending and Punitive Juvenile Justice Reform, 53 U. KAN. L. REV. 659 (2004).18.Catherine A. Martin et al., Sensation Seeking, Puberty, and Nicotine, Alcohol, and Marijuana Use in Adolescence, 41(12) Journal of Amer Academy of Child & Adolescent 1495 (2002).19.Christina Dejong & Eve Schwitzer Merrill, Getting “Tough on Crime”: Juvenile Waiver and the Criminal Court, 27 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 175 (2001).20.Christopher S. Monk et al., Adolescent Immaturity in Attentionrelated Brain Engagement to Emotional Facial Expressions, 20(1) Neuroimage 420 (2003).21.Christopher Slobogin & Mark R. Fondacaro, Juvenile Justice: The Fourth Option, 95 IowA L. REv. 1 (2009).22.Daniel P. Keating, Richard M. Lerner & Laurence Steinberg (2004), Cognitive and Brain Development, in Richard M. Lerner & Laurence Steinberg 2nd ed., Handbook of adolescent psychology (New Jersey: Wiley).23.David L. Myers, The Recidivism of Violent Youths in Juvenile and Adult Court: A Consideration of Selection Bias, 1 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 79 (2003).24.David O. Brink, Immaturity, Normative Competence, and Juvenile Transfer How (Not) to Punish Minors for Major Crimes, 82 TEX. L. REv. 1555 (2004).25.David P. Farrington (1983), Offending From Ten to Twenty-five Years of Age, in Katherine Teilmann Van Dusen & Sarnoff A. Mednick eds., Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency (Germany: Springer Netherlands).26.David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber & James C. Howell, Young Adult Offenders: The Need for more Effective Legislative Options and justice Processing, 11(4) Criminology & Public Policy 729 (2012).27.Denis Le Bihan et al., Diffusion Tensor Imaging: Concepts and Applications, 13(4) Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 534 (2001).28.Donna M. Bishop, Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System, 27 Crime and Justice 81 (2000).29.Dustin Albert & Laurence Steinbetg (2011), Peer Influences on Adolescent Risk Behavior, in Inhibitory Control and Drug Abuse Prevention, in Michael T. Bardo, Diana H. Fishbein & Richard Milich eds., Inhibitory control and drug abuse prevention (NY: Springer).30.Elizabeth A. Phelps & Laura A. Thomas, Race, Behavior, and the Brain: The Role of Neuroimaging in Understanding Complex Social Behaviors, 24(4) POL. PSYCHOL. 747 (2003).31.Elizabeth Cauffman & Laurence Steinberg, Emerging Findings From Research on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 7(4) Victims & Offenders 428 (2012).32.Elizabeth Cauffman et al., Age Differences in Affective Decision Making as Indexed by Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, 46(1) Developmental Psychology 193 (2010).33.Elizabeth Cauffman, Laurence Steinberg & Alex R. Piquero, Psychological, Neuropsychological and Physiological Correlates of Serious Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence: The Role of Self‐Control, 43(1) Criminology 133 (2005).34.Elizabeth R. Sowell et al., Development of Cortical and Subcortical Brain Structures in Childhood and Adolescence: A Structural MRI Study, 44 Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 4 (2002).35.Elizabeth R. Sowell et al., Longitudinal Mapping of Cortical Thickness and Brain Growth in Normal Children, 24 Journal of Neuroscience 8223 (2004).36.Elizabeth S. Scott & Laurence Steinberg, Social Welfare and Fairness in Juvenile Crime Regulation, 71 La. L. Rev. 35 (2010).37.Emily Buss, Rethinking the Connection Between Developmental Science and Juvenile Justice, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 493 (2009).38.Eric Courchesne et al., Normal Brain Development and Aging: Quantitative Analysis at in Vivo MR Imaging in Healthy Volunteers, 216(3) Radiology 672 (2000).39.Frederick Schauer, Neuroscience, Lie-detection, and the Law: Contrary to the Prevailing View, the Suitability of Brain-based Lie-detection for Courtroom or Forensic Use Should be Determined According to Legal and Not Scientific Standards, 14(3) Trends in Cognitive Sciences 101 (2010).40.Grace Icenogle, et al., Adolescents’ Cognitive Capacity Reaches Adult Levels Prior to Their Psychosocial Maturity: Evidence for a “Maturity Gap” in a Multinational, Cross-sectional Sample, 43(1) Law and Human Behavior 69 (2019).41.Greenberger, E., Education and the Acquisition of Psychosocial Maturity, The Development of Social Maturity 155 (1982).42.James M. Bjork et al., Incentive-elicited Brain Activation in Adolescents: Similarities and Differences From Young Adults, 24(8) The Journal of Neuroscience 1793 (2004).43.Jane B. Sprott, Understanding Public Opposition to a Separate Juvenile System, 44 Crime & Delinquency 399 (2001).44.Jari-Erik Nurmi, How Do Adolescents See Their Future? A Review of the Development of Future Orientation and Planning, 11(1) Developmental Review 1 (1991).45.Jason Chein et al., Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking by Enhancing Activity in the Brain`s Reward Circuitry, 14(2) Developmental Science F1 (2011).46.Jay D. Aronson, Brain Imaging, Culpability and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 13(2) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 115 (2007).47.Jay D. Aronson, Neuroscience and Juvenile Justice, 42 AKRoN L. REv. 917 (2009).48.Jay N. Giedd et al., Brain Development During Childhood and Adolescence: A Longitudinal MRI Study, 2(10) Nature Neuroscience 861 (1999).49.Jay N. Giedd, Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Adolescent Brain, 1021(1) ANNALs N.Y. AcAD. Sci. 77 (2004).50.Jay N. Giedd, The Teen Brain: Insights From Neuroimaging, 42(4) Journal of Adolescent Health 335 (2008).51.Jeffrey Fagan, Context and Culpability in Adolescent Crime, 6 Va. J. Soc. Pol`y & L. 507 (1998).52.Jeffrey Fagan, The Comparative Advantage of Juvenile Versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders, 18 Law & Policy 77 (1996).53.Jens Ludwig, Greg J. Duncan & Paul Hirschfield, Urban poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence From a Randomized Housing-mobility Experiment, 116(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 655 (2001).54.John Dilulio, The Coming of the Super-predators, 1(11) WKLY. STANDARD 23 (1995).55.John M. Fabian, Applying Roper v. Simmons in Juvenile Transfer and Waiver Proceedings: A Legal and Neuroscientific Inquiry, 55 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 732 (2011).56.John R. Mills, Anna Dorn & Amelia Hritz, Juvenile Life Without Parole in Law and Practice: The End of Superpredator Era Sentencing, 65 American University Law Review 535 (2015).57.Jon Snodgrass, William Healy (1869‐1963): Pioneer Child Psychiatrist and Criminologist, 20(4) Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 332 (1984).58.Kristan G. Erickson, Robert Crosnoe & Sanford M. Dornbusch, A Social Process Model of Adolescent Deviance: Combining Social Control and Differential Association Perspectives, 29(4) Journal of Youth and Adolescence 395 (2000).59.Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, Adolescents as Adults in Court: A Developmental Perspective on the Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court, 15 Social Policy Report 1 (2001).60.Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth S. Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58(12) American Psychologist 1009 (2003).61.Laurence Steinberg & Susan B. Silverberg, The Vicissitudes of Autonomy in Early Adolescence, 57(4) Child Development 841 (1986).62.Laurence Steinberg et al., Age Differences in Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity as Indexed by Behavior and Self-report: Evidence for a Dual Systems Model, 44(6) Developmental psychology 1764 (2008).63.Laurence Steinberg et al., Are Adolescents Less Mature than Adults?: Minors` Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA" Flip-flop.", 64(7) American Psychologist 583 (2009).64.Laurence Steinberg et al., Are Adolescents Mature than Adults? Minors’ Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA “Flip-flop”, 64(7) American Psychologist 583 (2009).65.Laurence Steinberg, A Dual Systems Model of Adolescent Risk-taking, 52(3) Developmental Psychobiology 216 (2010).66.Laurence Steinberg, Risk Taking in Adolescence: What Changes, and Why?, 1021(1) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 51 (2004).67.Laurence Steinberg, The Influence of Neuroscience on US Supreme Court Decisions About Adolescents` Criminal Culpability, 14(7) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 513 (2013).68.Linda P. Spear, The Adolescent Brain and Age-Related Behavioral Manifestations, 24(4) Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 417 (2000).69.Linda Van Leijenhorst et al., Adolescent Risky Decision-Making: Neurocognitive Development of Reward and Control Regions, 51(1) Neuroimage 345 (2010).70.Linda Van Leijenhorst et al., What Motivates the Adolescent? Brain Regions Mediating Reward Sensitivity Across Adolescence, 20(1) Cerebral Cortex 61 (2010).71.Lisa Ells, Juvenile Psychopathy: The Hollow Promise of Prediction, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 158 (2005).72.Lizzie Buchen, Science in Court: Arrested Development, 484 Nature 304 (2012).73.Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: an Experimental Study, 41(4) Developmental Psychology 625 (2005).74.Mark R. Fondacaro, Christopher Slobogin & Tricia Cross, Reconceptualizing Due Process in Juvenile Justice: Contributions From Law and Social Science, 57 Hastings LJ 955 (2005).75.Mark R. Fondacaro, Rethinking the Scientific and Legal Implications of Developmental Differences Research in Juvenile Justice, 17(3) New Criminal Law Review 407 (2014).76.Mark W. Lipsey (1995), What Do We Learn from 400 Research Studies on the Effectiveness of Treatment with Juvenile Delinquents?, in Fredrich Lösel & James McGuire eds., What Works: Reducing Reoffending (NJ: John Wiley & Sons).77.Mark W. Lipsey, Gabrielle L. Chapman & Nana A. Landenberger, Cognitive-behavioral Programs for Offenders, 578 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & Soc. SCI. 144 (2001).78.Michelle Leighton & Connie De La Vega, Sentencing Our Children To Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice, 42 U.S.F.L.Rev. 983 (2008).79.Nitin Gogtay et al., Dynamic Mapping of Human Cortical Development During Childhood and Adolescence, 101(21) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 8174 (2004).80.P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale et al., Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: A unique Research Opportunity, 27(6) Dev. Psychol. 918 (1991).81.Paolo Annino, David W. Rasmussen & Chelsea B. Rice, Juvenile Life Without Parole for Non–homicide Offenses: Florida Compared to Nation, 399 FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper (2009).82.Peter J. Benekos & Alida V. Merlo, A Decade of Change: Roper v. Simmons, Defending Childhood, and Juvenile Justice Policy, 30(1) Criminal Justice Policy Review 102 (2019).83.Philip Shaw et al., Neurodevelopmental Trajectories of the Human Cerebral Cortex, 28(14) Journal of Neuroscience 3586 (2008).84.Rachel Jacobs, Waving Goodbye to Due Process: The Juvenile Waiver System, 19 Cardozo JL & Gender 989 (2013).85.Richard E. Redding, How Common-sense Psychology Can Inform Law and Psycholegal Research, 5 U. CHI. L. ScH. ROUNDTABLE 107 (1998).86.Ronald E. Dahl, Biological, Developmental, and Neurobehavioral Factors Relevant to Adolescent Driving Risks, 35(3) American Journal of Preventive Medicine S278 (2008).87.Sarah-Jayne Blakemore & Suparna Choudhury, Development of the Adolescent Brain: Implications for Executive Function and Social Cognition, 47 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 296 (2006).88.Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, The Social Brain in Adolescence, 9(4) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 267 (2008).89.Scott W. Henggeler, Gary B. Melton & Linda A. Smith, Family Preservation Using Multisystemic Therapy: An Effective Alternative to Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders, 60 J. CONSULTING & CLINICAL PSYCHOL. 953 (1992).90.Stephen J. Morse, Brain Overclaim Redux, 31 Law & Ineq 509 (2012).91.Stephen J. Morse, Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note, 3 OHIo ST. J. CRIM. L. 397 (2006).92.Susan R. Bell, Ohio Gets Tough on Juvenile Crime: An Analysis of Ohio’s 1996 Amendments Concerning the Bindover of Violent Juvenile Offenders to the Adult System and Related Legislation, 66 U. CIN. L. REV. 207 (1997).93.Teneille Brown & Emily Murphy, Through a Scanner Darkly-functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant`s Past Mental States, 62 STAN. L. REv. 1119 (2010).94.Terrie E. Moffitt, Adolescence–limited and Life–course–persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy, 100(4) Psychological Rev. 674 (1993).95.Terry A. Maroney, The False Promise of Adolescent Brain Science in Juvenile Justice, 85 Notre Dame L. Rev. 89 (2009).96.Thomas Grisso & Antoinette Kavanaugh, Prospects for Developmental Evidence in Juvenile Sentencing Based on Miller v. Alabama, 22(3) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 235 (2016).97.Thomas Grisso et al., Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents’ and Adults’ Capacities as Trial Defendants, 27(4) Law and Human Behavior 333 (2003).98.Thomas Grisso, The Competence of Adolescents as Trial Defendants, 3 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3 (1997).99.Thomas J. Berndt, Developmental Changes in Conformity to Peers and Parents, 15(6) Developmental Psychology 608 (1979).100.Valerie F. Reyna & Frank Farley, Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy, 7(1) Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1 (2006).（三）其它1.Amanda Petteruti et al. (2009), The Cost of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, Available at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_pS.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).2.American Psychological Association (1989), Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 497 U.S. 502 (1990) and Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), Available at: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ohio.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).3.American Psychological Association (2004), Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Available at: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).4.David Prior et al. (2011), Maturity, Young Adults and Criminal Justice: A Literature Review, Availabe at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Maturity-final-literature-review-report.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).5.Elizabeth S. Scott, et al. (2015), The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing, Available at: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/The_Supreme_Court_and_the_Transformation_of_Juvenile_Sentencing%20%281%29.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).6.Human Rights Watch (2005), The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/AbstractDB/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=262831 (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).7.Kathleen Maguire & Ann L. Pastore (1998), Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/711233%20(2).pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).8.Mark Moran (2003), Adolescent Brain Development Argues Against Teen Executions, Available at: https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.38.10.0008 (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).9.Michele Deitch et al. (2009), From Time Out to Hard Time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Available at: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/publications/2009-From-Time-Out-to-Hard-Time-Young-Children-in-the-Adult-Criminal-Justice-System/download (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).10.Neelum Arya (2007), Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America, Available at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-Jailing_Juveniles_Report_2007-11-15.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).11.Steve Aos (2002), The Juvenile Justice System in Washington State: Recommendations to Improve Cost-effectiveness, Available at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/WhatWorksJuv.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).12.Steve Aos, Marna Miller Elizabeth Drake (2006), Evidence-based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates, Available at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/952/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Public-Policy-Options-to-Reduce-Future-Prison-Construction-Criminal-Justice-Costs-and-Crime-Rates_Full-Report.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2020).13.Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice (2009), Charting A New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State, Available at: https://www.vera.org/publications/charting-a-new-course-a-blueprint-for-transforming-juvenile-justice-in-new-york-state (last visited Dec. 27, 2020). zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202100310 en_US
