长期以来，罪错未成年人的利益与社会公共利益之间的关系始终是国家处理未成年人罪错案件的核心：如果片面强调打击和惩罚而忽视对未成年人的教育改造，那么从长远来看，社会公共安全也无法得到维护；如果片面强调教育改造而忽视公共安全，则可能会放纵罪错行为。因此，国家在处理罪错未成年人案件时，如何在教育改造和惩罚之间取得平衡，兼顾罪错未成年人利益与社会公共利益便显得十分重要。从世界范围来看，未成年人司法的目的经历了从教育改造到惩罚的钟摆式变化，现如今又朝着平衡目的观发展。与之相对，我国未成年人司法的目的仍以惩罚为主、教育改造为辅，这种目的观在司法实践中产生了诸多负面影响，不利于罪错未成年人回归社会和社会整体秩序的稳定。本文以未成年人司法目的及其实现路径为研究对象，在分析未成年人司法目的的含义及其相关范畴以及理论上对未成年人司法目的总结和反思的基础上，以平衡目的观为指引，提出我国未成年人司法的应然目的、目的实现的制度基础、模式依据以及相关配套措施。本论文除了导论外，正文共有五章组成。

第一章为未成年人司法目的的基本范畴。在我国，未成年人是指未满18周岁的人，未成年人一词在域外一般称为少年，在《联合国儿童权利公约》以及有些国家或地区中称为儿童。如果不作特别说明，这几个词语的含义是相同的。未成年人司法在域外一般称为少年司法，它是指处理罪错行为的法律制度及其实践。罪错行为包括两种形式，一种是少年实施的违反刑事法律的行为（既包括达到刑事责任年龄的情形，也包括尚未达到刑事责任年龄的情形），另一种是身份犯罪行为，即因少年的特殊身份而触犯法律的行为，成年人实施这些行为则不构成犯罪，譬如逃学、吸烟、饮酒等。在我国，罪错行为是指《预防未成年人犯罪法》规定的不良行为、严重不良行为和犯罪行为。本文所要研究的未成年人司法，是指处理不良行为、严重不良行为以及犯罪行为的法律制度及司法实践活动。未成年人司法目的是指立法者和司法者按照现实需要以及对未成年人司法实在可能性认识，预先设定的以主观观念形式存在的关于未成年人司法所要实现的目标。未成年人司法目的的相关基本范畴包括未成年人司法的价值和未成年人司法的功能。从目的确立的哲学依据上讲，未成年人司法目的的确立依据包括主体对于未成年人司法的需求和未成年人司法所具有的手段具有满足主体需求的功能。与成年人刑事司法的目的不同，未成年人司法目的的确立具有一些特殊性要素，包括实施罪错行为主体的特殊性、实施罪错行为原因的特殊性以及罪错行为发展趋势的特殊性。

第二章为未成年人司法目的观的历史演进。从古代至进步运动以前，国家处理未成年人的罪错行为以惩罚为唯一目的，将未成年人作为成年人施以残酷处罚。从进步运动到20世纪70年代前后，未成年人司法的主要目的是教育改造，其理论基础包括国家亲权理论和实证主义学派的理论。教育改造目的观的基本要求是将罪错未成年人从刑事司法中分流转处出来，进行治疗和干预。但这种目的观的根本缺陷在于，它将法院干预犯罪案件的目的和干预身份犯罪案件的目的同等看待，认为都是为了促进未成年人的福利，忽视了社会公共安全与未成年人利益之间存在固有的紧张关系。自20世纪70年代至21世纪初左右，未成年人司法的主要目的是惩罚，其理论基础包括报应理论、威慑理论和理性选择理论。该目的观的基本要求是，实施了严重暴力犯罪的未成年人应当像成年人一样受到惩罚。这种目的观只看到了公共安全与少年利益对立的一面，忽视了到二者统一的一面。自21世纪初至今，未成年人司法的主要目的是在教育改造与惩罚之间取得平衡，其理论基础包括日常活动理论、自我控制理论等。该目的观主张以社会福利为基础对罪错未成年人采取保护性措施，同时致力于维护社会公共安全，在必要时也可以以合乎比例的方式进行惩罚。

第三章为未成年人司法目的实现手段的比较法考察。以教育改造为主要目的的未成年人司法，其主要的实现手段包括：第一，在成文法和判例法当中体现教育改造目的。第二，设立少年法院，防止未成年人受到刑事法院和监狱的负面影响。第三，赋予少年法院以广泛的管辖权，使其作为福利机构干预罪错未成年人的生活，为罪错未成年人提供保护和治疗。第四，采取非正式性和非刑事性的审判程序。第五，少年法院法官依据心理学和社会工作原则，围绕未成年人的生活、性格、生活状况和社会环境等因素展开调查。第六，构建观护制度，对处置后留在家中的未成年人进行监督。上述实现手段具有灵活性和柔软性的特点，克服了刑事司法僵硬和严格的弊端，有助于全面、深入了解未成年人的需求并提供相应的治疗措施。但另一方面，由于上述手段片面强调教育改造，缺乏对维护公共安全的考量，难免有忽视社会利益、放纵犯罪之虞。以惩罚为主要目的的未成年人司法，其主要的实现手段包括：第一，在成文法和判例法当中体现惩罚目的。第二，在个别地区出现了废除少年法院的做法。第三，扩大刑事法院的管辖权。第四，少年法院采取与刑事法院类似的程序；等等。从结果上看，片面采取惩罚手段并没有起到一般预防和特殊预防的效果，刑事处罚特别是监禁在成人刑罚机构会阻止未成年人重新融入社会，并可能增加再犯。基于对教育改造和惩罚目的观实现手段的反思，平衡目的观采取的实现手段包括：第一，合理界定少年法院的管辖权。第二，广泛采取分流措施，将司法干预作为最后手段，尽量避免案件进入正式的诉讼程序。第三，对罪错行为进行早期干预。第四，将恢复性司法作为指导实践的理念。第五，设立专门的教育矫治机构。第六，采取以社区为基础的处置措施。第七，引入亲职教育令，强调家庭对于罪错少年的责任。平衡目的观的实现手段既考虑到了未成年人重新融入社会的需求，也兼顾了社会公共利益的维护。

第四章为我国未成年人司法目的的实然与应然。自新中国成立后至今，我国未成年人司法的目的的变化可以分为五个历史阶段。第一个阶段为1949年新中国成立后至文革之前，未成年人司法的目的主要是教育改造。第二个阶段为文革后至开始探索专门机构建设之前，保护未成年人和维护公共安全之间的紧张关系开始凸显，处理未成年人罪错案件的措施也呈现出保护与惩罚并举的特征。第三个阶段为专门机构开始设立至2012年刑事诉讼法修正，未成年人司法的目的开始从惩罚向教育改造过渡，但仍然以惩罚为主，教育改造为辅。第四个阶段为2012年刑事诉讼法修正后至“两法”修订，未成年人司法的目的继续朝着教育改造的方向发展。第五个阶段为2020年“两法”修订后至今。未成年人司法的目的在保护未成年人与维护公共安全之间逐渐趋于平衡，但与理想中的平衡目的观仍有一定差距。从哲学的角度讲，我国未成年人司法应然目的的确立依据一方面包括主体对于未成年人司法具有相应的需要，如未成年人实现社会化的需要、社会对于公共安全的需要以及国家对于保持国际竞争力的需要；另一方面，我国未成年人司法具有干预改善和社会教化功能，能够对未成年人成长和实现社会化过程当中相关联的因素进行干预和改善，促进未成年人接受社会行为准则。基于此，我国未成年人司法的应然目的是帮助未成年人完成社会化，提供有利于其建立社会连结的资源与机会，帮助其重新融入社会。这并非是将未成年人作为被条件化的客体进行单向条件化的过程，而是在互为主体的关系下，进行的双向沟通与互动。家庭在未成年人早期社会化中具有决定性影响，当家庭教养功能出现问题的时候，国家应当致力于重建和恢复家庭功能。

第五章为我国未成年人司法目的的实现路径。未成年人司法目的的实现需要手段，包括法律制度、组织体系和运行机制上的保障。这些保障的前提是要有一套独立的未成年人司法制度，只有构建起独立的未成年人司法制度，未成年人司法目的才能有所依托。构建独立的未成年人司法制度的基本问题包括制定处理未成年人罪错问题的专门立法、建立专门的办案机构以及构建以检察院为中心的先议制度。在未成年人司法与刑事司法之间的关系上，应该避免将未成年罪犯移送刑事审判庭，在未成年人案件审判庭和刑事审判庭之间树立牢固的界限。应然目的实现的模式依据是指未成年人司法制度在实践中的运作方式，是对于国家如何处理少年罪错案件在理论上的抽象概括。在域外，未成年人司法模式在理论上包括报应模式、福利模式和混合模式。这些模式的共同点包括在程序上具有宽松灵活的特点、注重审前社会调查、采取科学的矫正措施。我国未成年人司法应当选择混合模式，同时融入报应模式的循证方法。我国未成年人司法应然目的的实现还需要一些配套措施作为支撑。比如，解决罪错未成年人问题的同时要顾及被害人权益保护和社会公共利益的维护、运用恢复性司法理念作为司法实践的指导、提升司法程序的处遇效果、完善审前社会调查制度以及建立矫治措施效果的评估机制。

For a long time, the relationship between the interests of juveniles and the public interest has always been the core of the state's handling of juvenile delinquency cases: if one-sided emphasis on cracking down and punishment neglects the education and reform of minors, then social public safety cannot be maintained in the long run; If there is a one-sided emphasis on educational reform and neglect of public safety, there may be indulgence in criminal behavior. Therefore, when the state handles the case of juvenile delinquents, it is very important to strike a balance between education and reform and punishment, and to balance the interests of juveniles who have committed crimes with the public interest. Worldwide, the purpose of juvenile justice has undergone a pendulum shift from educational reform to punishment, and now it has developed towards a balanced view of purpose. However, the purpose of juvenile justice in China is still mainly punishment, supplemented by education and reform, and this concept of purpose has produced a series of negative effects in judicial practice, affecting the return of minors to society and the stability of the overall social order. Based on the analysis of the meaning and related scope of juvenile justice and the summary and reflection on the current theoretical purpose of juvenile justice, this paper puts forward the institutional basis, model basis and related supporting measures for the realization of the natural purpose and purpose of juvenile justice in China, guided by the balanced purpose view. In addition to the introduction, the main text of this paper consists of five chapters.

Chapter I is the basic scope for juvenile justice purposes. In our country, minors refer to persons under the age of 18, and the term minors are generally referred to as juveniles outside the territory, and children in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in some countries or regions. Unless otherwise specified, the terms have the same meaning. Juvenile justice, generally referred to as juvenile justice extraterritorially, refers to the legal system and practice of dealing with juvenile delinquency. There are two forms of wrongdoing, one is an act committed by a juvenile in violation of criminal law (both in cases where the age of criminal responsibility has been reached and in the absence of the age of criminal responsibility) and in the form of identity crime, i.e. acts that violate the law because of the special status of a juvenile, which do not constitute a crime by adults, such as truancy, smoking, drinking, etc. In our country, criminal acts refer to bad acts, serious bad acts and criminal acts under the Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. The juvenile justice to be studied in this article refers to the legal system and judicial practice activities for dealing with bad behavior, serious bad behavior and criminal behavior. The purpose of juvenile justice refers to the goals to be achieved in the form of subjective concepts about juvenile justice that legislators and judicial personnel set in accordance with actual needs and awareness of the real possibilities of juvenile justice. Relevant basic categories for the purpose of juvenile justice include the value of juvenile justice and the function of juvenile justice. From the philosophical basis of the establishment of the purpose, the basis for the establishment of the purpose of juvenile justice includes the needs of the subject for juvenile justice and the means of juvenile justice have the function of satisfying the needs of the subject. Different from the purpose of adult criminal justice, the establishment of juvenile justice purpose has some special elements, including the particularity of the target, the particularity of the reasons for committing the criminal act, and the particularity of the development trend of the criminal act.

Chapter II is the historical evolution of the concept of juvenile justice. From ancient times until the Progressive Movement, juvenile justice had the sole purpose of punishment, and the State subjected minors to brutal punishment as adults. From the Progressive Movement to the 70s of the 20th century, the main purpose of juvenile justice was educational reform, and its theoretical basis included the theory of paternity in the state and the theory of the positivist school. The basic requirement of the purpose concept of educational reform is to divert juvenile delinquents from criminal justice for treatment and intervention. However, the fundamental flaw of this view of purpose is that it believes that the purpose of the court's intervention in criminal cases is not different from the purpose of intervening in identity crime cases, and that both are aimed at promoting the welfare of minors, thus ignoring the inherent tension between social public safety and the interests of minors. From the 70s of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century, the main purpose of juvenile justice was punishment, and its theoretical basis included the theory of retribution, deterrence and rational choice. The basic requirement of this view of purpose is that minors who commit serious violent crimes should be punished in the same way as adults. This view of purpose only sees the opposite side of public safety and juvenile interests, and ignores the unity of the two. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the main purpose of juvenile justice has been to strike a balance between educational reform and punishment, based on theories of daily activities and control theory. This concept of purpose advocates taking protective measures for juveniles who have committed crimes on the basis of social welfare, while at the same time working to maintain social and public safety, and can also be punished in a proportionate manner when necessary.

Chapter III: A Comparative Law Examination of Means for Juvenile Justice Purposes. The means of juvenile justice with educational reform as its main purpose include: First, the purpose of educational reform is reflected in written law and case law. Secondly, juvenile courts have been established to prevent minors from being negatively affected by criminal courts and prisons. Third, the Juvenile Court is given broad jurisdiction to intervene extensively in the lives of delinquent minors as a welfare institution and to provide protection and treatment to delinquent minors. Fourth, informal and non-criminal trial procedures should be adopted. Fifth, juvenile court judges conduct investigations based on psychological and social work principles around factors such as the minor's life, personality, living conditions and social environment. Sixth, establish a system of observation and care to supervise minors who remain at home after disposal. The above-mentioned means of realization are characterized by flexibility and flexibility, overcome the shortcomings of rigid and strict criminal justice, and help to comprehensively and deeply understand the needs of minors and provide corresponding treatment measures. However, on the other hand, due to the one-sided emphasis on education and reform by the above-mentioned means, there is a lack of consideration for maintaining public safety, and it is inevitable that social interests will be ignored and crimes will be indulged. The main purpose of juvenile justice is to achieve the following: First, the purpose of punishment is reflected in statutory law and case law. Secondly, the practice of abolishing juvenile courts has emerged. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court should be expanded. Fourth, the procedures in juvenile courts are largely the same as those in criminal courts. As a result, the one-sided use of punishment does not have the effect of general and special prevention, and criminal penalties, especially imprisonment in adult penal institutions, will prevent the reintegration of minors into society and may increase recidivism. Based on the reflection on the means of achieving the concept of educational reform and punishment of the end, the means adopted to achieve the balanced view of purpose include: First, reasonably defining the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Second, diversion measures should be widely adopted, judicial intervention should be used as a last resort, and cases should be prevented from entering formal proceedings as much as possible. Third, early intervention in criminal behavior. Fourth, restorative justice is the concept that guides practice. Fifth, set up special education and correction institutions. Sixth, adopt community-based response measures. Seventh, introduce a parenting education order to emphasize the responsibility of the family towards juveniles who have committed crimes. The means of achieving a balanced view of purpose take into account not only the needs of minors for reintegration into society, but also the protection of social public interests.

Chapter IV is the true and proper purpose of juvenile justice in our country. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the changes in the purpose of juvenile justice in our country can be divided into five historical stages. The first stage, from the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 to the Cultural Revolution, was mainly aimed at educational reform. In the second stage, after the Cultural Revolution and before the exploration of the construction of specialized institutions, the tension between protecting minors and maintaining public safety began to become prominent, and the measures to deal with juvenile crime cases also showed the characteristics of both protection and punishment. The third stage, from the beginning of the establishment of specialized institutions to the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012, the purpose of juvenile justice began to transition from punishment to educational reform, but still mainly punishment, supplemented by educational reform. The fourth stage, from the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012 to the revision of the "two laws", continues to develop the purpose of juvenile justice in the direction of educational reform. The fifth stage is from the revision of the "two laws" in 2020 to the present. The purpose of juvenile justice has gradually become more balanced between the protection of minors and the maintenance of public safety, but there is still a certain gap between it and the ideal concept of balanced purpose. From a philosophical point of view, the basis for establishing the purpose of juvenile justice in China includes, on the one hand, the corresponding needs of the subject for juvenile justice, such as the need for minors to achieve socialization, the society's need for public safety, and the country's need to maintain international competitiveness; On the other hand, China's juvenile justice has the function of interfering in improvement and social indoctrination, which can intervene and improve the factors related to the process of minors' growth and socialization, and promote minors' acceptance of social codes of conduct. Based on this, the natural purpose of juvenile justice in our country is to help minors complete their socialization, provide resources and opportunities conducive to their social connection, and help them reintegrate into society. This is not a process of one-way conditionalization of minors as conditioned objects, but two-way communication and interaction under the relationship of mutual subjects. The family plays a decisive role in the early socialization of minors, and the State should endeavour to rebuild and restore family functioning when problems arise in the upbringing of the family.

Chapter V is the path to achieving the purpose of juvenile justice in our country. The realization of juvenile justice aims requires means, including safeguards in the legal system, organizational system, and operational mechanism. The premise of these guarantees is an independent juvenile justice system, and only by establishing an independent juvenile justice system can the purpose of juvenile justice be supported. The basic issues in establishing an independent juvenile justice system include the enactment of special legislation to deal with juvenile delinquency, the establishment of a special case-handling body, and the establishment of a system of prior discussion centered on the procuratorate. In the relationship between juvenile justice and criminal justice, the transfer of juvenile offenders to criminal courts should be avoided and a solid boundary should be established between juvenile and criminal courts. The model of achieving the purpose of the natural purpose refers to the way the juvenile justice system works in practice, and is an abstract theoretical summary of how the state deals with juvenile delinquency cases. Extraterritorially, juvenile justice models theoretically include retribution, welfare and mixed models. Common features of these models include the liberal and flexible nature of procedures, the focus on pre-trial social investigations, and the adoption of scientific corrective measures. Juvenile justice in our country should choose a hybrid model while incorporating the evidence-based approach of the retribution model. The realization of the natural purpose of juvenile justice in our country still needs some supporting measures as support. For example, while solving the problem of juveniles who have committed crimes, it is necessary to take into account the protection of victims' rights and interests and the protection of social public interests, use the concept of restorative justice as a guide for judicial practice, improve the effectiveness of judicial procedures, improve the pretrial social investigation system, and establish an evaluation mechanism for the effectiveness of corrective measures.