Home / Law

Protection Through Family and Social Institutions


2.2.2.2. Trial activities of the People's Court

Human rights protection mechanism

g element

g hin

Maybe you are interested!

h ending with

trial activities of the court. Therefore, the role of the court and the role of the trial stage in criminal proceedings are extremely important. Investigation and prosecution activities play a preparatory role, creating the basis for the trial activities of the court. In criminal proceedings, the trial stage of the court always plays a central role. The trial stage begins with the acceptance of the criminal case and ends with the court's effective judgment and decision. To ensure that the court properly performs its functions, roles and tasks of trial, the Criminal Procedure Code has very specific provisions on the principles of trial, clearly defining the jurisdiction of the court, the rights, obligations, and specific procedural activities of judges, people's assessors and other participants in the proceedings at the trial stage. The court's operating mechanism in criminal proceedings always ensures the independence of judges and people's assessors and strictly complies with the principles of criminal proceedings. All of this is aimed at ensuring that no crime goes unpunished and that everyone has the right to a fair trial or, in other words, the right to a fair sentence.

Protection Through Family and Social Institutions

2.2.3. Protection through family and social institutions

Family and social institutions are considered as means of protection.

The legitimate rights and interests of juveniles in criminal proceedings are the participation of agencies, organizations, and families in the process of resolving criminal cases involving juvenile defendants.

On the family side, as a warm home, a great spiritual support for adolescents, with the love, tolerance and generosity of family members, they will eliminate the guilt that they have caused. The encouragement and support of the family will give them more strength to help them escape the temptations of life, and educate them to develop to their fullest potential.


ability and positivity in oneself, thereby overcoming bad habits, becoming a good person in society.

On the side of the muscles

government agency,

the organizations

social function, with function,

The Judicial Council, in coordination with social organizations (such as the Women's Union, Youth Union, Children's Rights Protection Association, etc.), will participate in the process of resolving criminal cases as Guardians, Defenders, People's Jurors, etc. With their knowledge and skills, they will help the juveniles become more aware of the responsibilities they must bear when committing a crime; or, protect the juveniles from acts of abuse caused by the Prosecution Agency/Person during the process.


2.3. EXPERIENCE IN PROTECTING LEGITIMATE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF

MINORS IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

OF SOME

2.3.1. Overview

some

protection method

people not

Juveniles in criminal proceedings around the world

In this section, the author studies the models of juvenile protection in criminal justice that have been and are operating in the world. These models are chosen for study because each model represents a legal method. Some typical countries can be studied:

Thailand has had a separate juvenile justice system since 1951. The Family and Juvenile Court Act, which is currently in effect, was enacted in 1991 [33]. This Act created a system of specialized courts with jurisdiction over two main groups of cases:

1) cases involving children in conflict with the law; and 2) cases involving family matters including divorce, child support, child custody and visitation.


Thailand is currently testing a new program to prevent

prevent children from committing crimes and reduce the recidivism rate among juvenile delinquents. This program was developed by Judges of the Family and Children's Court under the name "New Model". The program has created a seamless chain of measures from juvenile crime prevention to diversion for less serious violations and violent behavior adjustment plans for juveniles who commit serious crimes. Reports from Judges participating in the New Model pilot project have shown that the recidivism rate among youth supported by the project has decreased significantly (from 12.31% to 1.86%) since the project began in 2002.

Canada [130], has the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1908 recently

as entirely pursuant to the state's Juvenile Court Act

Illinois, USA. The Juvenile Delinquency Act (1984-2003) shifted the emphasis to the penal aspect and also gave more procedural rights to juvenile offenders. In 2003, Canada amended it again, passing the Juvenile Criminal Justice Act.

Juvenile Justice Act (YCJA., SC 2002).

Criminal law

for Thanh

Canadian youth is a model with many points to learn from. Because:

First, the Act created a separate judicial system for

juvenile in accordance with international regulations;

Rank

two,

The Act has helped

diverting large numbers of first-time and less serious offenders from the formal justice system through the application of restorative justice principles and community-based alternatives;

Rank

three,

This Act limits the detention

minors only

applied to serious crimes.

Philippines, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act

2006 outlined a detailed, flexible system of diversion. These options include compensation, apology, supervision,


provide counseling to minors and families, and require participation in training courses on topics such as anger management, conflict resolution, and

community service, and required participation in community programs

The court may also order a fine, reprimand, court costs, and placement in institutional care or detention.

New Zealand, in 1989, passed the Children, Young Persons and Families Act [107]. This Act regulates the issues of children and young persons in need of care and protection as well as children in conflict with the law. This Act is an early attempt to incorporate the spirit of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into indigenous law and to value the contributions of members of the indigenous community to the lives of children, families and communities. In particular, New Zealand has achieved great resonance in applying family meetings and traditional indigenous methods to resolve conflicts related to children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with the law. Many countries in the world, including Thailand, have inherited these measures [104].

New South Wales [134], has a legal system based largely on English common law. Over time, NSW has developed a complex system of law dealing with children and young people. This includes the Young Offenders Act, the Children's Criminal Procedure Act, the Child and Young Persons Care and Protection Act, and the Adoption Act 2000. The aim of the Young Offenders Act is to divert young people from the formal justice system and to promote restorative and balanced justice goals. The Act applies to minor offences that can be tried as a matter of course, and can also be used to deal with some less serious prosecutable offences. New South Wales has a very comprehensive legal system that covers all areas of the interaction between state agencies and children and their families.


Japan has had a separate justice system for juveniles since 1949. The Japanese Juvenile Justice Law is based entirely on welfare , especially for children under 14 years of age. Recently , with the increasing trend of crime and some shocking crimes committed by children, Japan has increased the power of the state in dealing with juvenile defendants, especially with the decision to lower the age of criminal responsibility and extend the period of time allowed to keep juveniles in detention facilities [122]. The revised law also provides for the establishment of a new system to transfer serious cases from the Family Court to the Adult Court. In 2004, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about this change and concluded that the application of criminal proceedings is “inappropriate for children”.

Scotland [126], representing a purely welfare model for children at risk, has developed a special approach to children at risk with the introduction of the Scottish children's court system in 1971. The unique contribution of this model is that it separates the fact-finding function from the case-handling function. The fact-finding function is assigned to the Court while the model relies on community members to decide on the actions necessary to protect and/or rehabilitate children and young people.

The Czech Republic [ 120], is a newly established sovereign state.

The new law on juvenile matters came into effect on 1 January 2004. [32] This law builds on the strengths of the Welfare Court model, but also incorporates some newer trends in juvenile justice such as the application of restorative justice principles and the strengthening of the role of probation officers in the management and supervision of diverted juveniles.


outside the formal justice system or to apply alternative measures to imprisonment. With the current model, the Czech Republic has a system that is almost identical to those established in other European countries, adopting the starting philosophy of the Juvenile Court - that is, recognizing the developmental differences between adolescents and adults. In addition, this law has also incorporated new approaches to restorative justice in dealing with juvenile delinquents.

In the United States, there is no unified juvenile court system; each state is responsible for designing and implementing its own court system. Therefore, the most effective way for the federal government to influence the juvenile justice policies of the states is to set up

conditions attached to federal funds provided to the government

States. Although the vast majority of states still maintain juvenile court jurisdiction over both child protection and juvenile justice, a number of states and substates have begun to experiment with the family court model.

Comment : Although the above brief summaries cannot be

captures and represents all aspects of a national protection system, but the unique characteristics of each model have

body

effective to

refer, research, apply appropriately

conditions and circumstances of Vietnam. Also through research on models

this, author

notice, to

protect

effective

legitimate rights and interests

of NCTN, besides building and perfecting the physical

regime

specifically the organization

function

prosecution

The specific chant is very important, in which, the model

The formation of specialized courts for the elderly is an inevitable trend.

2.3.2. Some models of specialized juvenile courts in the world



profit)

2.3.2.1. Court Model for Children at Risk (Social Welfare Model)


The first separate justice system model for children was built.

in Cook County, Illinois (USA) in 1899. This new Juvenile Court model was given jurisdiction over three groups of children: children accused of committing crimes; children who have been abused, neglected or exploited; and children who are no longer in parental care due to death, disability or other reasons [117]. It is this Children at Risk model that has become the core component of many Juvenile Court systems currently in use around the world.

This approach to dealing with juvenile delinquency is often referred to as the “restorative” or “welfare” model.

profit".

The original form of the Court was organized

appropriate function to respond

application

The goals are: 1) trials are held in private to protect the identity of children and to allow them to have a “clean record” as adults; 2) juvenile courts operate much more informally than adult courts, with judges acting more as strict parents than as guardians of the law; 3) probation officers and enforcement officers are given wide discretion in deciding when and how to apply rehabilitative measures to juveniles. But this very discretion has led to situations where juveniles are forced to stay in detention facilities for longer periods than adults who have committed the same crime.

In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that changed the way juvenile court systems operate across the United States and around the world. In the case of In re Gault, the Court concluded that juvenile offenders were being held in a “hammer and anvil” situation.


[116]. On the one hand, juveniles have fewer rights than adults. On the other hand, probation officers do not have the resources necessary to carry out their responsibilities to support the rehabilitation of juveniles. As a result, many children are deprived of their liberty for long periods of time without receiving any treatment or rehabilitation services. In subsequent Gault cases, the Court has provided that juveniles in conflict with the law have certain procedural rights, such as the right to an attorney, the right to appear before the court and confront witnesses, the right to remain silent, and the right to have the public authority prove that the case against them is concluded “beyond a reasonable doubt.”


punish)

2.3.2.2. Juvenile Justice Model (Punishment Model)


Since the early 70s of the last century, some Western countries began

The shift away from this model and towards more punitive approaches to juvenile crime, which focused less on the needs of juveniles and more on the nature and severity of the offense. There were several reasons for this shift: 1) the increasing trend of serious juvenile crime in these countries between the 1950s and 1980s; 2) the media played an important role in raising public concerns about juvenile crime by focusing on a small (unrepresentative) number of high-profile cases [128]. This emphasis on punitiveness in juvenile crime also occurred in other Anglo-Saxon countries including Canada, England, and Wales [127].

In the late 20th century, countries that had moved away from the welfare state model are reconsidering their decision. Why is this happening?

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *