在我国，未成年人刑事司法制度一直备受关注。2012年，《刑事诉讼法》进行了重大修改，将未成年人刑事案件诉讼程序作为特别程序的一章予以规定，但是其中并不涉及未成年人刑事案件暂缓判决制度一节。事实上，早在1992年，我国部分地区就已经开始了对暂缓判决的实践探索。十几年的时间，各地法院已逐渐形成关于未成年人刑事案件暂缓判决的适用规则。故，此轮《刑事诉讼法》修改对暂缓判决制度的“遗漏”再次成为专家学者、司法实务部门讨论的焦点。暂缓判决制度是舶来品，其起源于英美法系，并被大陆法系所借鉴。在域外各国，暂缓判决制度在法律术语与制度内容等方面均存在差异，但在大多数国家，该制度并非仅适用于未成年人，其亦适用于成年人。诚然，暂缓判决制度本身具有着独立的价值，两大法系在暂缓判决的制度设计方面自成体系且各有特色，值得我国参考借鉴。我国各地法院的司法实践是在借鉴域外立法的基础上探索完成的，但是由于缺乏法律规定，质疑的声音不绝于耳。反对者主要从合法性、合理性、必要性三个方面对该制度予以抨击，支持者亦从这三个方面予以回应。然而，通过分析可知，未成年人刑事案件暂缓判决制度就功能而言是对已有规定的完善和补充，就内容而言比已有规定更加灵活，就效果而言与已有规定并不重合；问卷调研的结果亦显示，暂缓判决具有公众基础和司法实践基础；因此，该制度的建立具有必要性和可行性。在我国，暂缓判决应当是指在未成年人刑事案件中，对已构成犯罪且符合条件的未成年犯罪人，先不宣告罪刑，而是由法院设置考验期，让未成年人在社会中接受矫治，考验期结束后，根据考察结果确定最终刑罚的制度。构建该制度之基本路径主要可分为两步，第一步为试点论证阶段；第二步为立法阶段，即以尊重未成年人的特殊性为基础，以教育、感化、挽救失足未成年人为目标，在综合考虑人权、公平、正义、改造罪犯的基础上进行制度设计。未成年人刑事案件暂缓判决制度的具体制度设计可以分为三个部分：第一部分为审判程序，包括庭审前的社会调查、宣告暂缓判决前的庭审程序、暂缓判决裁定的作出及救济程序、暂缓判决的监督和考验期结束后的审判程序。第二部分为考察程序，包括考察主体，考察流程（接受与报到、成立考察小组、第一次见面、进度会议和报告、中期心理评估和辅导、最后一次见面）、考察方案（社区服务、赔偿、管护项目、学校型项目）和违反规定的处理。第三部分为配套制度，包括社会调查、分案审理、社区矫正和法官绩效考核。

In China, the justice system of juvenile delinquency has been paid great attention. In 2012, the criminal procedural law has carried on the significant modification, including the proceedings of juvenile delinquency. But it doesn’t contain the probation. In fact, as early as 1992, many cities have gotten started on the practices of probation. After ten years, each city has gradually formed about the rules of probation in the cases of juvenile delinquency. Therefore, a hot debate was stirred up among people once the conclusion of modification of the criminal procedural law came out.Probation came from foreign country, it originated in Anglo-American law system, and used for reference by the continental law system. On abroad, probation has many differences on languages and contents between countries. And in most countries, probation is not only applicable to the cases of juvenile delinquency. It is suitable for adults as well. Actually, probation has the independent value. Indeed, the probations of the two law systems have own respective features, we can take them as references.The judicial practice of China is on the basis of other countries’ legislation. Because of the lack of legal provisions, questioning voice has appeared. Opponents criticize the practice from the legitimacy, rationality and necessity of probation. Supporters responded them from the three aspects as well. However, through the analysis, probation in the cases of juvenile delinquency dose not conflict with legal provisions. It can improve our legal system. The results of the questionnaire survey also show that probation has the public foundation. Therefore, the establishment of the system has the necessity and feasibility.In China, the probation should be refers to the system in the cases of juvenile delinquency, in which judge suspend sentences to the convicted defendants who can keep good behavior under supervision. In order to legislating probation, we should take two steps. The first one is the pilot demonstration stage. The second one is the legislation, which should base on the respect to the particularity of juvenile to regard of "education, influence and rehabilitation", and then bulid up the system on the comprehensive consideration of human rights, fair, justice and reforming criminals.To be specific, the procedures of probation in the cases of juvenile delinquency include three sections. The frist one is the trial procedure, including the social investigation before trial, the procedure of trial before the probation, adjudication and remedy procedure, supervision and procedure after probation. The second one is the procedure of supervision, including the subjects, processes (including acceptance and registration, setting up supervision team, the first meeting, schedule meetings and mid-term report, psychological assessment and counseling and the final meeting), plans(including community services, compensation, project management, school projects) and in violation of regulations. The third one is the supporting system, including the social investigation, divisional adjudication, community correction and the system of judges’ performance evaluation.