The Ministry of the Interior recently announced that it is considering revisions to regulations governing the prevention of juvenile delinquency. The changes would attempt to clarify the definition "delinquent" by adding a new set of activities such as dropping out of school or attending the funerals of gang members to the definition.
The regulations were originally created in 1972 and revised in 1999. All in all, there is still much to consider in terms of the contents of this administrative order.
The prime candidate for scrutiny is the idea of an "early warning" system. In our society, the original motivation is often lost through unintentional administration and it appears the "early warning" system could have unintended consequences. Quite simply, these regulations were originally directed toward delinquent behavior in juveniles. Yet, in reality, they instead become a means of labeling people "juvenile delinquents." The implications of the difference between the two is immeasurable.
While "delinquent behavior" demarcates certain types of behavior, the term "juvenile delinquent" is a judgment on personal identity, a label.
Most important, once the label has been applied, it becomes impossible to remove.
Meanwhile, most people probably would not even know how it was determined or what it entails. Its effects, however, are far reaching, hence the need for prudence.
Strictly speaking, most of the 15 types of delinquent behavior are conceptual rather than concretely defined. They are abstract in that they do not have stable connotations and may differ with personal interpretation. For instance, to behave rudely or arrogantly toward elders, parents or teachers -- what exactly constitutes arrogance? It would be difficult to reach a consensus. This is why legal academics often criticize the formulation of inaccurate legal concepts.
I won't even discuss here whether quitting school constitutes "delinquent" behavior, but most of us would be startled at being labeled a "juvenile delinquent" simply for driving a car or a scooter without a driver's license.
There is also room for discussing whether other activities, such as wandering around late at night, running away from home or school, fighting without going so far so as to cause bodily harm, owning pornographic pictures, texts, videos, CDs or publications, etc, should be considered grounds for the "juvenile delinquent" label.
In all fairness, most youths have committed the above offenses, but context, frequency and degree make all the difference. If authorities are not cautious now, the future of youngsters could be ruined by this legislation.
Late night wanderings, running way from home or school, like dropping out, are likely to be symptoms of problems originating at home or at school. To force teenagers to take the responsibility for these actions is to allow adults to escape their responsibility. Hence these regulations and the definition of delinquent behavior must be carefully reconsidered.
Lee Yung-ching is a professor at the Nanya Institute of Technology.
Translated by Angela Hong
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS