Home Law International Handbook of Juvenile Justice
Art. 16a (in conjunction with electronic monitoring).
The charge is lifted by the responsible authorities—or the juvenile prosecution service in the case of the juvenile judges model, and the juvenile counsel in the case of the juvenile counsel model—when: no summary proceedings are issued, the facts of the case and the personal situation of the juvenile have been investigated sufficiently, and a sanction which falls within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is taken into account.
The juvenile court is responsible for the court proceedings. In the first instance, the court judges those cases that have attained a certain degree of gravity as well when an objection to the summary proceedings exists. The juvenile court is composed of the president and two assessors (Riedo 2013). The JPCP has no guidelines for specialized pedagogical knowledge. But most of the cantons know such requirements in their legislations.
According to Art. 21 JCC, the juvenile court can refrain from issuing a penalty when the conditions outlined in the Article have been complied with, even though the investigative authorities have not dispensed with the criminal prosecution. Apart from that and apart from the sanctions also the investigation authorities can determine, according to juvenile criminal law the juvenile court can mandate:
In Switzerland, judicial practice does not respond to juvenile criminal acts primarily with the classic instruments of criminal law, as presented in Table 22.3. In 2014, nearly 43 % of all convicted juveniles were ordered to perform community service (“personliche Leistung"). Only 6.4 %> were sentenced to prison sentences, and only 2 % were sentenced to unconditional imprisonment (Urwyler & Nett 2012). Judicial reprimand (27 %) also plays an important role in practice, followed by fines with around 20 %. Exemption from punishment (Art. 21 JCC) plays only a subordinate role in the sentencing statistics (3 %), which, given the statutory specifications, is to be expected. This is to be expected because according to Art. 5 JCC, the investigative authorities during the presentation of prerequisites set out in Art. 21 must abstain from prosecution. To a large extent juvenile criminal procedures end with a penalty, whereas protective measures are mandated in only a few cases (Urwyler & Nett 2012).
Table 22.3. JUSUS: conviction of juveniles by main sanction in 2014a
aThe numbers in Table 3 are not comparable to numbers in Tables 1 and 2. The numbers here reflect convictions by main sanction. They refer to all convictions reported to the Bundesamt fur Statistik, i.e., convictions for felony, petty offense or misdemeanor charges according to the CC, narcotics laws, foreign residence laws, and convictions of petty offense and felony in traffic laws
bFor each sentencing a “main sanction” is determined, and only these numbers are disclosed in the table. The sanctions were hierarchized according to severity, and only those with the most severe sanctions were taken into account. The sanction deemed most severe are prison sentences, followed by community service, fines, reprimand, measures, and, finally exemption from punishment
cThe following are counted as stationary measures: placement in families, educational institutions, or a treatment facilities. The data does only include those stationary measures which have become legally binding until April 27 2015 so that numbers might rise in future
dThe following are counted as ambulatory measures: supervision, personal support, and ambulatory treatment
Source: FSO 2015: (JUSUS)
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|