Abstract
The amendment to the Juvenile Law in 2000 came about through legislation by House members after vigorous debate about the temperaments and responsibilities of children. House members cited juvenile crime when pointing out the necessity of overcoming current social crisis, and proposed the amendment. The increasing viciousness of crimes and the increasingly younger age of the offenders were highlighted and people's fear was in a sense politically exploited. During the amendment process, House members did not sufficiently discuss: (1) the necessity of the amendment, (2) the anticipated social impact caused by more severe punishment, and (3) the reality of children's lives. Essentially, as an issue is deliberated, it should be clarified that the person who is proposing legislation is responsible for the primary effects thereof. In addition, the data supporting the proposal should be made public in line with people's right to know the legislation process. The legislation process behind this amendment needs to be examined. During discussion leading to the amendment, the term "child crime" was used and the child's responsibility was pointed out; debate focused on "skepticism toward specialization and specialists" in juvenile crime, thereby belittling the social influence of the family court; emphasis was placed on the necessity to create a safe environment free of crime, giving the police greater control over society. Deliberation of the broader use of punishment and greater severity of the punishment is closely linked to the decline in social resources and motivation for preventing delinquent behavior. During the five-year review of this legislation, a check must be carried out to determine whether the amended Juvenile Law is achieving the expected goals.
