未成年人司法转处在未成年人司法体系中具有重要地位与价值，其不仅是衡量一国未成年人司法发展状况的重要指标，也是国际刑事司法与未成年人司法准则的基本要求。本文通过对未成年人司法转处的发展历程剥丝抽茧，认为未成年人司法转处起源于理念，形成于实践，完善于制度，是一项含义广博、层次丰富、内容详实、形态多样的立体概念。因此，本文将域外的未成年人司法转处作为解构对象，运用文献分析与对比研究方法，从理念、实践与制度三个维度切入较为系统完整地阐明其本质并予以总结，或反思不足之处，或提出有益借鉴，最后落脚于未成年人司法转处的中国构建。 第一章是未成年人司法转处的基本范畴。未成年人司法转处的概念是研究的起点，本文从层次、内容、形态、相关概念区分四个维度对其进行解读。再向前推及未成年人司法转处的理论基础，其具有来自未成年人司法、犯罪学与刑事法三方面的基础。未成年人司法转处的目标是避免与减弱污名化效果、提供服务、降低司法成本并提高未成年人司法体系的效率以及减少再犯。未成年人司法转处包括关注正式司法体系对未成年人的消极影响，重视未成年人承担责任的必然性以及强调未成年人顺利回归社会的必要性三个特征。 第二章是未成年人司法转处的理念之维。未成年人司法转处理念起源于美国，通过对该国未成年人司法的传统、正当程序以及惩罚模式时期的未成年人转处理念的剖析，本文认为未成年人转处理念是主体性的观念，是未成年人司法的理念，是一项具有现实针对性的概念。虽然未成年人司法体系在过去甚至未来呈现周期性的变化，在福利与惩罚之间摇摆，在未成年人康复与社会保护之间徘徊，但作为未成年人司法诞生与发展正当化根据的转处理念从未被削弱。然而，在未成年人司法转处理念蓬勃发展的同时，应对其缩小或扩张社会控制、是否缺乏对被害人的关注等方面进行反思。 第三章是未成年人司法转处的实践之维。未成年人司法转处实践是理念传播发展的必然产物，且由于各国法律传统与基础不同，各国的未成年人转处实践也各具特色。本章从实体内容与程序内容两方面对实践类型进行考察。依前者可将未成年人司法转处实践类型化为三种模式，即转处项目模式、恢复性司法模式以及警察警告模式。依后者可将未成年人司法转处实践类型化为审前转处与全程转处两种模式。实证研究表明，未成年人司法转处实践的确能够实现减少再犯等目标，然而针对转处实践，也需要对剥夺权利的危险、违反会议条件的未知后果和未经定罪的惩罚等方面进行反思。 第四章是未成年人司法转处的制度之维。未成年人司法转处理念与实践发展到一定阶段则以制度的形式确认其成果。根据各国未成年人司法转处制度是以程序阶段分明为特征或以实体内容周延为特征，将其分为这两种模式并进行内容梳理、特点归纳与经验总结。同时，基于国际司法准则的具体规定，从转处依据、阶段、适用主体与方案这四个方面对未成年人司法转处制度进行体系性考察。由此可以对其进行制度的法理提炼，梳理出未成年人司法转处制度应具备的基本特征、应遵循的基本原则以及应涵盖的基本内容。 第五章是未成年人司法转处的中国构建。我国未成年人司法的产生与发展具有一定的特殊性，即起步较晚同时发展缓慢，故而未成年人司法转处在我国的发展特点表现为理念、实践与制度共同演进，尤其是后两者有时难以严格区分或剥离。然而，为了阐明我国未成年人司法转处的理念、实践与制度的现状及其存在的问题，本章尽可能地对三者进行了相对独立的描述。此外，我国未成年人司法转处制度的构建与完善面临着一定机遇与挑战。域外各国的未成年人司法转处制度为我国制度的构建提供了广义的与狭义的转处制度两种方案的启示，通过对比分析二者的优势与缺陷后，后者是我国的更优选择，即我国的未成年人司法转处制度应当是将未成年人从正式的刑事司法或未成年人司法程序中附条件或无条件地予以转出并视情况对其实施相应的处遇措施，未成年人遵守条件或完全履行义务后不再启动或不再继续司法程序的狭义的制度。因此我国构建该制度的具体路径一方面要关注五项重点问题，即界定适用范围的依据与对象的公平性，转处制度与被害人权益的平衡，公安机关的自由裁量权与延伸到审判阶段的转处制度，正当程序的保障，实体处遇与保护处分之辨；另一方面应当扩大适用范围且保障适用的公平性，增强公安机关的自由裁量权且法院适用转处，构建体系化的实体处遇方案。

The juvenile justice diversion has an important position and value in the juvenile justice system. It is not only an important indicator to measure the juvenile justice development in a country, but also the basic requirement of the international criminal justice and juvenile justice guidelines. However, many people point its necessity and few exactly know what it is. This paper tries to find out that the juvenile justice diversion originated from the idea, formed in practice and perfected in the system through analyzing its development process. It is a three-dimensional concept with wide meaning, rich level, detailed content and diverse forms. Therefore, this paper takes the extraterritorial juvenile justice diversion as an object of deconstruction. By using the methods of literature analysis and comparative study, the article systematically and conclusively analyzes the nature of the juvenile justice diversion from the three dimensions of idea, practice and system and summarizes, reflecting on the inadequacies or putting forward useful reference, and finally settling in China juvenile justice diversion establishment. The first chapter introduces the basic scope of juvenile justice diversion. The concept of juvenile justice diversion is the starting point of the research. This article interprets it from the three dimensions of level, content and form. And the juvenile justice diversion has the theoretical foundation from three aspects: juvenile justice, criminology and criminal law. The goal of the juvenile justice diversion is to avoid and diminish the stigmatization effect, to provide services, to reduce the cost of justice and to increase the efficiency of the juvenile justice system and to reduce recidivism. The juveniles judicial diversion includes the three characteristics of paying attention to the negative impact of the formal justice system on minors, paying attention to the inevitability of minors’ responsibility, and emphasizing the need of minors to return to society smoothly. The second chapter clarifies the idea of the juvenile justice diversion. Through the analysis of the period of tradition, due process and punishment model of juvenile justice in the United States, the idea of the juvenile justice diversion is the concept of subjectivity, the concept of juvenile justice and a concept of realistic pertinence. Although the juvenile justice system has undergone cyclical changes in the past and even in the future, swinging between welfare and punishment, and hovering between the rehabilitation of juveniles and social protection, the idea of juvenile justice diversion as the basis for justifying the birth and development of juvenile justice has never been weakened. However, while the idea of juvenile justice diversion is booming, we should reflect on whether it reduces or expands social control and whether it lacks attention to the victims. The third chapter describes the practice of juvenile justice diversion. The practice of juvenile justice diversion is an inevitable result of the spread of ideology；and due to the different legal traditions and foundations of different countries, the practice in different countries also has its own characteristics. This chapter examines the types of practice from both the substantial and procedural aspects. According to the former aspect, the practice of juvenile justice diversion can be classified into three modes, which are diversion program mode, restorative justice mode and police warning mode. According to the latter aspect, the practice of juvenile justice diversion can be classified into two modes including pretrial diversion and full diversion. Empirical studies show that the juvenile justice diversion practice can indeed achieve the goal of reducing recidivism. However, the practice of diversion often brings about the risk of deprivation of rights, the unknown consequences of violating the conference conditions and the non-conviction punishment. The fourth chapter sums up the system of juvenile justice diversion. The idea and practice of juvenile justice diversion has been developed to a certain stage to confirm its achievements in the form of a system. According to the system of juvenile justice diversion in each country, the system is characterized by distinct procedural stages or comprehensive content. Therefore the system could be divided into two modes. At the same time, based on the specific provisions of the international judicial guidelines, the juvenile justice diversion system is systematically investigated from four aspects: basis, stage, applicable subject and treatment. From this we can sort out the basic characteristics that the juvenile justice system should have, the basic principles to be followed and the basic contents that should be covered. The fifth chapter plans Chinese construction of juvenile justice diversion. Since the juvenile justice in our country started late and develops slowly, the characteristic of the juvenile justice diversion is that the idea, practice and the system are evolving together but sometimes the latter two are sometimes difficult to be strictly separated or stripped. However, in order to clarify the status quo and existing problems of the idea, practice and system of juvenile justice diversion in our country, this chapter tries to give a relatively independent description of them as possible. In addition, the system of juvenile justice diversion in our country faces certain opportunities and challenges. For the establishment of the system of our country, the juvenile justice system in other countries provides two options that are broad sense level and narrow level. After analyzing and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two, the latter is a better choice for our country. That is, the system of juvenile justice diversion in our country should transfer minors with or without conditions from the formal criminal justice or juvenile justice, take appropriate measures to deal with them, and no longer start or continue the judicial process if minors comply with the conditions or completely perform its obligations. Therefore, the path of constructing this system in our country should pay attention to five key issues on the one hand, that is, the basis for defining the scope of application and the fairness of objects, balancing between the system of diversion and the victim's rights and interests, the discretion of public security organs and the extension to the trial stage, the guarantee of due process, and the distinction between the substantial treatments and protective measures. On the other hand, it should expand its scope of application and guarantee the fairness of its application, increase the discretion of the public security authorities, encourage the court to apply the diversion, and establish substantial treatment system.