This article has three purposes; to clear 1) the concept of status offense, 2) the borderline and the relationship between status offender and juvenile offender, and 3) these between status offender and trifling juvenile delinquent. Article 3.1 (3) of the Juvenile Law (1948) provides two conditions, with which Family Court may have jurisdiction over the status offenders. The first one is composed of four kinds of behavior, and it is better than having nothing like this (cf. the former Juvenile Law (1922) Art. 4 (1)). Though, their connotation and denotation are too vague to work as the effective restriction for the fundamental human rights. The second one is the status offender's proneness to commit a crime. But, because of the technical reasons, to make the exact prediction of the future criminal action is almost impossible still now. So, the prediction seems to be the one based on the common sense only, and its persuasion depends, not on the result of scientific investigations, but on the ability shaping the documentary evidence. Protective measures are taken according not to the gravity of the crime, but to the necessity of protection, and the Family Court pre-sentence investigators, whose fields are sociology, psychology, or pedagogy, work just for this purpose. So, the necessity of protection is the third condition, and its meaning should be the effectiveness of correctional treatment, and the worthiness of protection. In 1985, among the 291,789 persons dealt with protective procedures at the Family Court, status offenders were only 4,560 persons (1.6%). As to the status offender, the ratio of protective measures was 22.1% higher than that for the total, and among them the ratio of committal to Juvenile Training School was 12.9% higher than that for the total. It is said that the necessity of protection of status offender is greater than that of juvenile offender. But, only the status offenders with the greatest necessity of protection are selected to be referred or informed by the juvenile police. Trifling juvenile delinquents, whose behavior was almost the same as the status offenders', and whom the juvenile police did not need to refer or inform to the Family Court or the Child Guidance Center, were 1,477,134 persons in 1985. In accordance with the increase of the juvenile police case-workers, the declining tendency of the number of status offender will continue.

抄録全体を表示

抄録無し

抄録全体を表示

I examined what kind of concrete behaviors were stipulated as predelinquency in its concept. I'll leave abstract discussion on the concept of pre-delinquency to the scholars and judges. I also tried to clarify, from a variety of data, whether or not difference between pre-delinquent and a similar concept of "misdemeanor juvenile" (Furyo-koi Shonen) devised by the police was obvious enough. I learned: If a misdemeanor juvenile has committed any one of such behaviors as runaway from home, drug addiction, violence and fight, he is probably considered to be a pre-delinquent. And when the misdemeanor juvenile under the police guidance is regarded as having rehabilitated himself, he is not probably refferred to the Family Court as a pre-delinquent. (It is obvious that the police decides whether the juveniles are pre-delinquents or not.) The exsisting Juvenile Law has inadequacies regarding pre-delinquency. The followings will exemplify the exhibited problems; 1. Many pre-delinquents are sent to the Family Court escorted by the police (The police actually takes charge of them and escort them to the Family Court on the pretext that they go together voluntarily). 2. The pre-delinquents are referred to the Detention House in so many cases. This comes because some judges decide by themselves without hearing the research secretary (of the family court)' opinions. 3. Police officers often want to visit the juveniles confined in the Detention House for the purpose of information-gathering. 4. Further, there is no legal controle when the police try to find pre-delinquents. There is no legal basis when the police guide the pre-delinquents and misdemeanor juveniles, either. Something must be done immediately to cope with these circumstances from the view point of juveniles' (fundamental) human rights.

抄録全体を表示

Behavioral standards are an important determinant of delinquent behavior. The present study investigated the associations between behavioral standards and juvenile delinquency of children in reformatory institutions. A total of 1 248 children in reformatory institutions completed the Standard for Public Space Scale (SPS). The resulting alpha coefficients suggested that the SPS had high internal reliability. Factor analysis revealed five factors: (a) Public Values, (b) Egocentric, (c) Regional-standards, (d) Peer-standards, and (e) Care about Others. Cluster analysis revealed that juvenile delinquency experiences fell into two clusters of “likelihood of committing a crime” and “committing a crime”. In addition, ANOVAs suggested that juvenile delinquents in reformatory institutions had higher scores on factors of Egocentric and Peer-standards on the behavioral standards, compared to juvenile non-delinquents. The value of using the Standard for Public Space Scale for the study of juvenile delinquency was discussed.

抄録全体を表示

スマートフォンやソーシャルメディアの普及を背景に，SNS等を通じた児童の被害が増加しており，青少年を取り巻く情報環境は大きなリスクと隣り合わせになっている。本研究ではその中でも近年深刻な社会病理となっている「売買春」に着目し，Twitterにおける問題投稿に付帯されるハッシュタグの特徴について計量テキスト分析の手法を用いて分析した。

結果より，登場頻度の高いハッシュタグについて「エリア示唆」「援助（間接的表現）」「援助（直接的表現）」「裏アカウント示唆」「学生示唆」「性描写」「その他」の7つに分類し，その中でも地域名を明示する「エリア示唆」と売買春を間接的に示唆する「援助（間接的表現）」の共起関係が強いことが明らかとなった。こうした知見はサイバー補導における効率的な事前検知につながることが期待できる。

抄録全体を表示

目的 本研究は，中学生における有機溶剤乱用の実態を把握し，乱用者に共通した生活背景を明らかにした上で，有機溶剤乱用への“gateway drug”（ある薬物 A の使用がより依存性，毒性の強い薬物 B の使用に結びつくという考え方）としての喫煙および飲酒を検討することを目的とした。
方法 埼玉県内 3 校の中学校の生徒を対象に，倫理面に配慮しながら，質問紙調査を無記名自記式にて行い，計2,049人（有効回答率93.2%）から質問紙を回収した。有機溶剤乱用経験の有無により，対象者を 2 群に分類し，常習的な喫煙・飲酒行動が有機溶剤乱用への“gateway drug”となっているかを検討するために，①有機溶剤と喫煙および飲酒との関連性，②使用順序，③多変量解析による検討，の 3 つの側面から解析を行った。
結果 ①有機溶剤乱用経験率は，全体の1.1%であった。経験率は女子よりも男子の方が多く（男子の1.9%，女子の0.3%），学年が上がるにつれて増加する傾向がみられた（1 年0.6%，2 年0.8%，3 年2.1%）。②単変量解析において，有機溶剤乱用と喫煙および飲酒との間には関連がみられた。③使用開始年齢不明者の者が多く，有機溶剤，喫煙，飲酒の使用順序を把握することはできなかったので“gateway drug”仮説は検証できなかった。④多変量解析の結果，有機溶剤乱用へのリスクを高める要因として，常習的な喫煙行動，家族から喫煙を勧められた経験がある，夕食を一人で食べる頻度が高い，乱用現場を目撃した経験がある，友人に乱用者がいる，などが挙げられた。⑤飲酒と有機溶剤乱用との関連は，多変量解析後にはみられなくなった。
結論 中学生の間にも有機溶剤乱用は依然として広がっており，中学 1 年生においても乱用経験者がみられることから，より早期での予防教育の必要性を再認識した。また，有機溶剤乱用経験者は，仲間からの影響を強く受けていることや，家族とのコミュニケーションが乏しい状態にあることが示唆され，「仲間からの誘いをいかに断るか」といったライフスキルトレーニングや家族関係を視野に入れた社会的心理的なケアの充実が今後有効であると考えられた。“gateway drug”仮説を検証するための有機溶剤・喫煙・飲酒の使用順序は明らかにできなかったものの，常習的な喫煙行動は，有機溶剤乱用と強く結び付いていると思われる。一方，飲酒と有機溶剤乱用との関連は，喫煙が交絡因子になっていると予想され，飲酒単独では“gateway drug”とはならないと示唆された。

抄録全体を表示

This study investigated the trajectories and related factors of deviant behavior among students during their three years of junior high school. Data was analyzed from 344 students who completed a questionnaire survey every September. Nineteen categories of deviant behavior were examined, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, bullying, truancy, violence, and stealing. We determined behavioral trajectories from mild deviant behaviors to more serious ones. The data showed that more than half of the children who engaged in serious deviant behaviors in the third year followed a trajectory from mild deviant behaviors. The three factors of “deviant peers”, “attachment to parents” and “achievement” were related to the trajectory into more serious deviant behaviors.

抄録全体を表示

少年矯正におけるトークン・エコノミー技法に関する最近の11編の研究を概観した結果，以下の4点が見い出された。（1）これら研究の知見によるかぎり，トークン・エコノミーは非行少年を対象として，特定の目標行動を強化するのに多かれ少なかれ有効である。（2）しかしながら，研究の主眼は専らトークンによる強化と目標行動の形成との関連に置かれており，その余の種々の心理的要因については全く検討されていない。（3）トークン強化の目標行動は概して日常生活における小さな行為であって，施設の管理上望ましいと思われるものが多い。（4）効果の検証は，多くの場合，統制群（対照群）と実験群との差異あるいは非実験期と実験期の比較によってなされており，フォロー・アップが行われていない。そこで，今後の研究において課題とすべき問題として，次の4点が指摘された。すなわち，（1）トークン強化以外の種々の心理治療的要因――例えば，処遇者の肯定的関心，共感的理解，志気，被処遇者の自己改善の意欲，人格特性，あるいは処遇者と被処遇者の組合わせ――の及ぼす効果，（2）目標行動の学習と遵法的態度形成との関連性，（3）被験者が自由社会に復帰した後，自然な生活環境における合法的行動様式への，トークン強化による効果の般化可能性，及び（4）トークン・エコノミーにおける強制的規制のもたらす反治療的な影響，の4点である。

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this study is to examine a relationship between problem behaviors and student cultures. We conducted a questionnaire, which contained scales of (1) negative feelings about school life, (2) experiences of problem behavior, (3) the level of problem behavoir of school, (4) images of "bad student", for 674 junior high school students of 5 schools. All students and schools were divided into two categories, students who have problem behaviors and normal student; schools with high level of problem behavior and schools with low level. And we have examined what differences in student cultures between schools with high levels of problem behavior and schools with low levels are. A result of comparison between problem schools and non-problem schools, students of problem schools have more positive image about bad student and more negative feelings about school life than that of non-problem schools. And there are such differences not in problem students but normal students. We considered that the consiousness and attitudes of normal students are related to the high level of problem behavior of school. Thus, in order to prevent and solve the problem behavior among students, it is important that we give instructions and supports to only on problem students, but also normal students.

抄録全体を表示