User:Brutannica/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 04:22, 28 August 2013

This is the user sandbox of Brutannica. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Shounen hogo tetsuzuki (少年保護手続), or juvenile protection process in English, are the legal measures taken by family courts in Japan to correct the personalities of juvenile delinquents and adjust their environments in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Shounen-hou (Juvenile Code). The goals of the juvenile protection process are the restraint of further delinquency and rehabilitation. It can be summarized as "notifying the family courts of delinquent behavior; inspection by the family court inspector; judgment according to the results of the inspection; and if necessary, deciding upon protective measures."

Characteristics

Shounen hogo tetsuzuki are procedures applied in place of the regular criminal procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.^[1]^[2] They have both welfare and judicial functions.

Welfare function

The welfare function is in order to ensure the youth's healthy upbringing.^[3] Namely, in addition to education and protection for delinquents, the juvenile protection process aims to stimulate them into improving their own future,^[4]^[5] and blame for past transgressions is assigned partially to needing protection.^[6]

This concept incorporates the philosophies of individual treatment (the degree to which protection is necessary is emphasized over the severity of delinquency when treatment is assigned), the priority of protection (measures other than criminal penalties are prioritized),^[7] offical authority (it permits family courts to administer the process actively and at their discretion instead of tightly restricting them),^[8] and referral of all cases (the discretion of referral to a criminal investigation is not granted). The special characteristic of the juvenile protection process is that it contradicts the criminal law principles of retribution, the adversarial system and opportunity.

Judicial function

The judicial function is to take necessary measures to restore and maintain law-abiding behavior among delinquent youths (that is, youths who have broken the law or are in danger of doing so) "according to procedure established by law" (Constitution of Japan Article 31). In other words, the juvenile protection process is part of the penal code seeking to restore and uphold law-abiding behavior to defend society while also preserving the rights of youths to receive due process. This function was instituted to supplement the welfare function described above.

There are two schools of thought that emphasize the judicial function, the due process school and the menace restraint school (or harsh punishment school).^[9] The due process school stresses the necessity of providing youths ample notification (an explanation from the family court), a hearing (an opportunity for the youth to rebut the court's accusation), and investigation of evidence within reasonable limits and methods when they are charged with delinquency (see the Supreme Court decision of October 26, 1983 regarding Nagareyama Central High School). These protective measures are backed up by Public Force. On the other hand, it recognizes that there are situations in which the youth's rebuttal may not be accepted without criticism and in which judgment is reached according to appropriate accusatory materials (see the Supreme Court decision of March 30, 2005).^[10] Opposing this, the menace restraint school argues that menace through harsh punishments restrains crime, and that education and protection through the juvenile protection process only indulges delinquents. It is a legislative school that calls for the diminution or elimination of the process's scope and criticizes the true application of the priority of protection as making no punishment the priority instead.^[11]

References

^ Taguchi, pp. 181-182
^ There are also provisions for special criminal procedures for children in international human rights law (see Convention on the Rights of the Child).
^ For more on the parens patriae underlining this, see Tamiya & Hirose, p. 5
^ Sawanobu (1999), p. 10; Tamiya & Hirose, p. 26
^ This is in agreement with international human rights law beginning with Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, pp. 577-579
^ Hirose, p. 122; Takauchi, Hisao. 現行少年法における「責任」概念について (About the concept of "blame" in current juvenile law.) [1] Housei Riron vol. 34. 2003
^ Tamiya & Hirose, p. 20; Taguchi, p. 186
^ Tamiya & Hirose, p. 35
^ Sawanobu (1999), pp. 187-188
^ Sawanobu (1999), pp. 72-74; Hamai, p. 96
^ Sawanobu (1999), p. 91; Sawanobu (2001), p. 38

[1] Taguchi, pp. 181-182

[2] There are also provisions for special criminal procedures for children in international human rights law (see Convention on the Rights of the Child).

[3] For more on the parens patriae underlining this, see Tamiya & Hirose, p. 5

[4] Sawanobu (1999), p. 10; Tamiya & Hirose, p. 26

[5] This is in agreement with international human rights law beginning with Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, pp. 577-579

[6] Hirose, p. 122; Takauchi, Hisao. 現行少年法における「責任」概念について (About the concept of "blame" in current juvenile law.) [1] Housei Riron vol. 34. 2003

[7] Tamiya & Hirose, p. 20; Taguchi, p. 186

[8] Tamiya & Hirose, p. 35

[9] Sawanobu (1999), pp. 187-188

[10] Sawanobu (1999), pp. 72-74; Hamai, p. 96

[11] Sawanobu (1999), p. 91; Sawanobu (2001), p. 38

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ===Welfare function===
-The welfare function is in order to ensure the youth's healthy upbringing.<ref>For more on the [[parens patriae]] underlining this, see Tamiya & Hirose, p. 5</ref> Namely, in addition to education and protection for delinquents, the juvenile protection process aims to stimulate them into improving their own future,<ref>Sawanobu, p. 10; Tamiya & Hirose, p. 26</ref><ref>This is in agreement with international human rights law beginning with Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, pp. 577-579</ref> and blame for past transgressions is assigned partially to needing protection.<ref>Hirose, p. 122; Takauchi, Hisao. 現行少年法における「責任」概念について (About the concept of "blame" in current juvenile law.) [http://homepage2.nifty.com/takauchi/res/0.htm] ''Housei Riron'' vol. 34. 2003</ref>
+The welfare function is in order to ensure the youth's healthy upbringing.<ref>For more on the [[parens patriae]] underlining this, see Tamiya & Hirose, p. 5</ref> Namely, in addition to education and protection for delinquents, the juvenile protection process aims to stimulate them into improving their own future,<ref>Sawanobu (1999), p. 10; Tamiya & Hirose, p. 26</ref><ref>This is in agreement with international human rights law beginning with Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, pp. 577-579</ref> and blame for past transgressions is assigned partially to needing protection.<ref>Hirose, p. 122; Takauchi, Hisao. 現行少年法における「責任」概念について (About the concept of "blame" in current juvenile law.) [http://homepage2.nifty.com/takauchi/res/0.htm] ''Housei Riron'' vol. 34. 2003</ref>
 This concept incorporates the philosophies of individual treatment (the degree to which protection is necessary is emphasized over the severity of delinquency when treatment is assigned), the priority of protection (measures other than criminal penalties are prioritized),<ref>Tamiya & Hirose, p. 20; Taguchi, p. 186</ref> offical authority (it permits family courts to administer the process actively and at their discretion instead of tightly restricting them),<ref>Tamiya & Hirose, p. 35</ref> and referral of all cases (the discretion of referral to a criminal investigation is not granted). The special characteristic of the juvenile protection process is that it contradicts the criminal law principles of retribution, the [[adversarial system]] and [[principle of opportunity|opportunity]].
+===Judicial function===
+The judicial function is to take necessary measures to restore and maintain law-abiding behavior among delinquent youths (that is, youths who have broken the law or are in danger of doing so) "according to procedure established by law" ([[Constitution of Japan]] Article 31). In other words, the juvenile protection process is part of the penal code seeking to restore and uphold law-abiding behavior to defend society while also preserving the rights of youths to receive due process. This function was instituted to supplement the welfare function described above.
+There are two schools of thought that emphasize the judicial function, the due process school and the menace restraint school (or harsh punishment school).<ref>Sawanobu (1999), pp. 187-188</ref> The due process school stresses the necessity of providing youths ample notification (an explanation from the family court), a hearing (an opportunity for the youth to rebut the court's accusation), and investigation of evidence within reasonable limits and methods when they are charged with delinquency (see the Supreme Court decision of [[October 26]], [[1983]] regarding Nagareyama Central High School). These protective measures are backed up by [[Public Force]]. On the other hand, it recognizes that there are situations in which the youth's rebuttal may not be accepted without criticism and in which judgment is reached according to appropriate accusatory materials (see the Supreme Court decision of [[March 30]], [[2005]]).<ref>Sawanobu (1999), pp. 72-74; Hamai, p. 96</ref> Opposing this, the menace restraint school argues that menace through harsh punishments restrains crime, and that education and protection through the juvenile protection process only indulges delinquents. It is a legislative school that calls for the diminution or elimination of the process's scope and criticizes the true application of the priority of protection as making no punishment the priority instead.<ref>Sawanobu (1999), p. 91; Sawanobu (2001), p. 38</ref>
 ==References==