Status,Issues,and Challenges of Chinese Juvenile Justice

Abstract

Given the size of China’s juvenile population and the rapid social transformation in recent decades, researchers and policy makers are paying increased attention to juvenile justice–related issues. This article begins with an overview of the Chinese juvenile justice national data, followed by an in-depth discussion on the principles and mixed influences, and the unique juvenile justice process in China. Drawing upon the accumulated research on the subject matter, we highlight the most significant challenges such as rising crime among migrant youth, reforms within the criminal justice agencies, and issues of legitimacy facing the Chinese juvenile justice system today. Recommendations are made for future research and policy.

Keywords

Chinese juvenile justice legitimacy reform balanced justice

Introduction

China is the world’s most populous country and the second largest economy as of 2017. Among its 1.35 billion population, nearly 279 million are juveniles below 18 years of age (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2012). Because of its dazzling economic growth, increasing global influence, and distinctive historical, cultural, and political context, China is viewed as “a strategic site for developing criminological knowledge” (Liu, 2007, p. 7). Several recent observations of Chinese juvenile crimes are worth noting, such as the trend toward younger age of offenders, the growing epidemic in school bullying, and the rising rate of crime and delinquency among migrant youth (H. Zhang, Zhao, Ren, & Zhao, 2017). The criminogenic impact of social changes on migrant youth deserves special attention as they are the fastest-growing segment of the population (Tienda & Haskins, 2011).

Relatedly, questions have been raised as to how the Chinese juvenile justice system should engage in a systematic reform (H. Zhang, 2015). Given the publicity generated from recent reporting on violent crimes committed by teenagers, legal scholars and lawmakers are at a crossroad on whether and how to amend the laws. The punishment and child-saving instincts in addressing juvenile crime coexist uneasily in the current Chinese statutory environment, not unlike similar experiences from other nations once upon a time (Fagan, 2008). There is certainly a desire for a comprehensive approach that could address the needs of both the communities and the juvenile delinquents. The tension between protecting the best interests of the child and the best interests of the society adds fuel to the ongoing debate. Some see the current dilemma in the Chinese juvenile justice system as eerily familiar to the American experience from decades earlier (H. Zhang, 2015). For example, by the 1970s, the impact of child savers movement since the Progressive Era in the early 20th century had faded in many states in the United States. Slowly but surely, the America’s juvenile justice pendulum has swung toward greater focuses on juvenile individual accountability and punitive responses (Feld, 1997).

The role of the juvenile justice system is perceived very differently in China, at least at the legislature level. Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing over the next three decades, China has ratified all the major international treaties that protect juveniles. Its domestic legislation has reflected its international obligations by outlining a set of principles and objectives intended to meet the needs of the juveniles. The unique Chinese cultural, sociopolitical context sets its juvenile justice system apart from that of the other nations, but to some extent, Chinese juvenile justice practices also reflect global development. Since 1991, when the first national law on juvenile protection was enacted, the Chinese government has made effort to incorporate progressive developments in the field of juvenile justice worldwide. For example, the most recent revision of the Chinese Criminal Procedure Code in 2012 prescribes specific procedures for dealing with juvenile cases, such as conditional nonprosecution and the sealing of juvenile criminal records.

This article starts with an overview of the available (albeit limited) Chinese juvenile justice national data, followed by an in-depth discussion on the key characteristics of the juvenile justice system in contemporary China. Drawing upon the accumulated research on the subject matter, we highlight the most significant challenges facing the Chinese juvenile justice system today and make recommendations for future research and policy.

Chinese Juvenile Justice: National Data

Several broad observations concerning Chinese juvenile justice can be identified at the national level based on two primary sources of official statistics—the China Statistical Yearbook and the Law Yearbook (Zhao, Zhang, & Liu, 2015). The national data use three measurements: (a) the number of juvenile cases tried by the courts, (b) the percentage of juvenile offenders among all offenders tried by the courts, and (c) the number of offenders incarcerated in juvenile correctional institutions.

The number of juvenile cases tried by the courts had fluctuated from 1990 to 2008. After reaching its peak at 88,891 cases in 2008 (H. Zhang, 2015), it began to decline steadily in the following 7 years, ending with 43,846 cases in 2015, or a 51% drop. Although there has been increasing concerns about juvenile crime, juveniles commit only a small portion of the nation’s total crimes according to the official statistics. Data on the percentage of juvenile offenders among all offenders tried by the courts demonstrate a decreasing trend for the period 1990 to 2014. This measure hovered around 6% to 8% from 1990 through 2002, when it began rising steadily to nearly 10% in 2005. The trend reversed at that point, and by 2015, the percentage of juveniles tried by the courts had returned to only 3.6% of the total offenders tried (Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2016).

Although China has faced a sustained increase in its overall prison population, the juvenile prison population has decreased significantly in more recent years. Fewer teens have been locked up than at any time since 2005. Of a youth population of nearly 279 million who are below 18, 15,429 were imprisoned in 2012 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2013). However, a higher proportion of juvenile offenders have been characterized as younger and more violent (Bao & Haas, 2009). For instance, in Guangzhou, a prosperous metropolis located along the southern coastline of China’s Guangdong province, robbery, intentional assault, and theft accounted for more than two thirds of all juvenile crimes adjudicated from 2007 to 2014 (Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, 2015).

It is worth mentioning that there are serious drawbacks when using official data as a measure of juvenile crime in China, as only the most serious juvenile offenders are included in the statistical sources (Zhao & Cao, 2017). Because the highly filtered official measures are far removed from the actual acts committed on the ground, proper caution in reading officially defined and recorded crime statistics is always necessary. More comprehensive coverage of the merits and pitfalls of Chinese crime statistics can be found in He (2014) and L. Zhang (2014), among others.

Juvenile Justice With Chinese Characteristics

Key Principles and Mixed Influences

Characterized by a culture of punitiveness, the general criminal justice system in China retains many traditional punitive principles and practices (Shen, 2016). Nevertheless, the current juvenile justice system in China can be more appropriately described as an admixture of influences from Maoism, Confucianism, and the Western doctrine of parens patriae (Zhao et al., 2015). Researchers argue that the socialist ideology still dominate the operation of the Chinese juvenile justice system (e.g., Feinerman, 1985; Zhao et al., 2015). For example, both the Chinese Juvenile Protection Law (1991, Article 4) and the Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Law (1999, Article 6) stated that juveniles should be educated in “ideals, morality, rule of law, as well as patriotism, collectivism and socialism.” This ideological influence is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

The Chinese juvenile justice system emphasizes the Confucian doctrine of “caring tenderly for the young” (Zhao et al., 2015). Traditionally, China has focused its crime prevention efforts on education and responsibilities, using informal social control mechanisms such as persuasion, resocialization, and indoctrination (Friday, 1998; Leng & Chiu, 1985; Zhang & Liu, 2007). Even before the advent of modern times, juveniles especially first-time offenders under the patriarchal order were given lenient punishments (Feinerman, 1985). Juveniles are seen both as more susceptible to negative peer influences and as having ample capacities for rehabilitation. The so-called “temper justice with mercy” conveys an expectation for both justice and forgiveness (Zhao et al., 2015).

An effective response to juvenile crime is a holistic and complex task involving coordination between all parties in the community, including government and nongovernment agencies. As Friday (1998) correctly pointed out, “effective crime prevention can occur only when the philosophy is one of collective responsibilities and not one of castigating blame” (p. 311). In Chinese contexts, the law of wrongdoing is premised on the notion that responsibility is collective or group-oriented, rather than individual-based. By advocating a collectivist culture, Confucianism promotes shame instead of punishment. In other words, children are taught to uphold the honor of the family by avoiding shame brought by delinquent acts (Bao & Haas, 2009). The Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Law (1999) stipulates that all government agencies, judicial organizations, relevant social agents, schools, families, urban residents’ committees, and rural villagers’ committees need to work together to create a suitable social environment for juveniles (Article 3). The Criminal Procedure Code of 1996 further stipulates that the courts, the procuratorates, and the police should ensure the procedural rights of juveniles when handling juvenile criminal cases (Article 266). Through the implementation of these laws, the government hopes the principle of protecting “the best interests of the child” could be enforced within the criminal justice system. The intention of the law also reflects the traditional Chinese belief in the power of education in shaping thoughts and behaviors (Zhang & Liu, 2007).

Over the past few decades, restorative justice has emerged as an increasingly important element in the mainstream criminal justice worldwide (Braithwaite, 1989, 2002). It has grown rapidly with the emergence of new intervention strategies, standards, and principles in Chinese juvenile justice as well (Wong & Mok, 2011). The restorative approaches were introduced to focus on juvenile offender accountability, offender competency development, and community protection (H. Zhang, 2015). The long history of Chinese traditional teachings seems to be in sync with the spirit of restorative justice. Thus, it came as no surprise that the Chinese naturally feel more empathy for the juveniles, and are more inclined toward reconciliation between juvenile offenders and their victims (Wong & Mok, 2011; Zhao et al., 2015).

Juvenile Justice Process

China does not have a separate juvenile justice system from the perspective of the Western models (Feinerman, 1985; Wong, 1999, 2001; Zhao et al., 2015). The organization and procedure of the juvenile justice system in China are not significantly different from those of the adult system. The discretionary power of juvenile justice authorities mirrors the process in cases involving adult offenders (Feinerman, 1985). However, because of their age and vulnerability, juvenile offenders do receive extra protections than their adult counterparts. The Chinese Criminal Procedure Code (1996) prescribes how the police, the procuratorates, the courts, and the correctional system handle juvenile offenders. Interestingly, the increased procedural formality since the implementation of the revised Chinese Criminal Procedure Code in 2012 had coincided with the stronger advocacy for treating juveniles with mercy. In the space below, we highlight a few recent developments to illustrate how the Chinese criminal justice agencies have begun to make adaptations at the local level.

The Chinese police have always had the discretion to impose a series of administrative sanctions against juvenile offenders without judicial review (Feinerman, 1985; Leng & Chiu, 1985). Under the law, the police also have a clearly defined role in delinquency prevention (Wong, 2004). Although many police agencies have juvenile specialists, the country’s first juvenile unit within a police agency was not established until 2013 in Qinzhou, a coastal prefecture in Guangxi province. The new police brigade is made responsible for supervising juvenile criminal case processing, conducting investigation, collecting social inquiry reports, facilitating legal aid services, and strengthening the collaborative efforts against juvenile crime with the procuratorates, courts, and other agencies (Huang, 2013).

The procuratorate is the state agent for legal supervision in China, in addition to its prosecutorial functions. It has the right to exercise procuratorial authority by carrying out legal supervision on police investigation and court processing (Wong & Mok, 2011). Granting a special role to the procuratorate in dealing with juvenile cases has been deemed vital for Chinese juvenile justice. Recent juvenile justice reforms included the establishment of the Procuratorial Office for Juveniles within the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in December 2015. One of the goals for specialized juvenile prosecution is to develop a system of comprehensive services tailored to the needs of the juveniles. By March 2016, 12 provincial procuratorates, 123 prefectural procuratorates, and 893 county or district procuratorates had established special independent procuratorial departments to process juvenile crime (Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2016).

Similarly, the meaning of a juvenile court in China might be quite different from its Western counterpart. Some suggest that it is more appropriately referred to as a juvenile tribunal (Zhao et al., 2015). The terms utilized to describe Chinese juvenile tribunals vary across jurisdictions. For example, they can be called criminal tribunal’s juvenile collegiate panel, juvenile criminal tribunal, or juvenile comprehensive tribunal. Official data from 2016 show that there are 2,249 juvenile tribunals, including 1,246 collegiate panels, 405 juvenile criminal tribunals, 598 comprehensive tribunals, representing a diversified field practice. From 1984 (when the first juvenile tribunal was created) to 2016, the number of juvenile offenders adjudicated nationwide exceeded 1.5 million. The possible sanctions range from strict parental and community controls, to an assignment to a work–study school, to serving sentence in a juvenile prison (Epstein, 2003; Feinerman, 1985).

The Chinese work–study school that functions as juvenile reformatory education has become the most widely used measure for dealing with juvenile delinquency cases in China (MacBean, 1999). It combines the intensively supervised middle-school educational curriculum with light labor to inculcate moral values and teach self-discipline among juvenile offenders (L. Zhang, 2008). In practice, however, there seems to be a net-widening effect when some work-study schools also house students with Internet addictions, pregnant teens, and homeless children (Jin, 2015). Against the backdrop of rapid urbanization and modernization, the students in the work-study schools increasingly tend to be the left-behind children and migrant youth (S. Zhang, 2016).

Current Issues and Challenges

Rising Crime Among Migrant Youth

China is facing an internal migration crisis at an unprecedented scale in human history. Since the creation of the household registration system (Hukou) in 1958, China has structured social relationships by limiting population mobility and by separating the urban and rural populations (Curran, 1998; Qiao & Huang, 2013). China began to experience an explosion of internal migration starting in the early 1980s (Curran, 1998; Friday, 1998). Based on the Census data, Qiao and Huang (2013) reported that in 2010, the internal migrants (or the floating population) had reached 261 million, accounting for 20% of the national population, and that it had increased by 117 million (or 81.0%) in the first decade of the 21st century.

High-risk juveniles, such as migrant youth, are suspected to have higher offending rates. As a demographic group, they have already taken up an alarming share of the population in the juvenile justice system. The growth of juvenile crime in the urban areas and coastal regions mirrors the country’s uneven economic development (Epstein, 2003; Wang, 2016; Zhou & Ge, 2015). The rate of juvenile crime among the migrant youth population in the economically developed regions continues to grow rapidly, especially in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangdong, and other provinces with high immigration rates. For example, the share of migrant juvenile offenders grew from 70% in 1992 to 85% in 2000 in Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong province (An, 2004). Although the ratio of local to nonlocal juvenile offenders incarcerated in Shanghai Correctional Institution was roughly 6:4 in 2000, this proportion has been reversed to 4:6 from 2003 onward. By 2005, the proportion had reached 3:7, and as of 2007, this ratio was close to 2:8 (W. Zhang, Lin, Zhou, & Qian, 2007). By analyzing a Beijing district court’s juvenile criminal cases adjudicated from January to October 2013, Y. Zhang and Wang (2015) found that 80% were committed by migrant youth. Similarly, data from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate show that among all juvenile cases processed in 2014, 57,932 (or 75%) cases involve migrant youth.¹

Juvenile Tribunals, Family Tribunals, and Work-Study Schools

Despite recent reforms and progresses, China’s contemporary juvenile justice system faces many challenges. Although considered vital, an approach to safeguarding child welfare has not been fully integrated into the juvenile justice system. To date, there is no national agency whose primary mandate is delinquency prevention and child welfare. The Chinese juvenile justice system is gradually maturing amid legal transplantation and innovation, but the formation and role of complementary child welfare, especially specialized government child welfare authorities, are still faltering (H. Zhang, 2013).

In keeping with the legislative evolution, there has been substantial adaptations within Chinese criminal justice agencies such as the creations of juvenile tribunals and juvenile prosecution. Nevertheless, the number of juvenile criminal cases adjudicated has been decreasing significantly in recent years, whereas cases involving family disputes (part of which are related to juvenile issues) have increased remarkably. For example, in 2014, the Basic People’s Court (or courts of first instance) adjudicated 1,619,000 cases of family disputes over inheritances and marriages. The total count of such cases reached 1,733,000 in 2015. There has been substantial pressure nationwide on the Chinese courts to merge juvenile tribunals with family tribunals. In fact, the City of Guangzhou had already merged its juvenile tribunals with the family tribunals in early 2016. The scope of cases handled by the juvenile and family tribunals in Guangzhou includes those involving marriage, adoption, parentage, recourse for alimony, and inheritance, as well as criminal cases involving juveniles. To the outside observers, it remains debatable whether the merger and reorganization of these two tribunals in Guangzhou is a genuine integration or a convenient union to optimize court resources.

Work-study schools, a mainstay mechanism for reforming juvenile delinquents in the past, are facing difficulties with surviving due to “a combination of diminishing effectiveness in a context of changing social circumstances and a growing awareness of the deleterious effects that can follow the labeling of young people” (Shen, 2016, p. 98). In the beginning of the implementation of work-study education, the schools enrolled students on a mandatory basis. With the implementation of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Law in 1999, the standards for enrolling were changed to be tripartite voluntary, requiring the consent of the parents, the school, and the student. Immediately after the implementation of the new law, the number of work-study schools across the nation had once reached a peak of more than 200. However, the figures have fallen rapidly since then, and many of these schools have been closed (Jin, 2015; S. Zhang, 2016). According to recent statistics from the Chinese Ministry of Education, there are only 78 of such schools nationwide with a total enrollment of 9,307 students in 2014. The remaining schools are keen to rename themselves as “specialty schools.” For instance, Beijing’s “Haidian Work-Study School” was renamed as “Haidian Boarding School.” Researchers speculate that the significant drop in the number of work-study schools in China is not due to a diminished juvenile delinquency problem, but rather an outcome due to stricter enforcement of the tripartite voluntary requirement.

Issues of Legitimacy

The Chinese juvenile justice system has been under increasing scrutiny in recent years. There is a continued debate about the balance between public safety and juvenile rehabilitation. The Chinese juvenile justice system is now facing similar issues like those endured by other nations decades earlier. More specifically, the assumptions about the nature of juvenile crime, the blameworthiness of juvenile offenders, and how society should reconcile the competing concerns of public safety, victims’ rights, and juvenile development are in question (Fagan, 2008). Since 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), In re Gault, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971) have blurred the once steadfast distinctions between adult and juvenile courts (Feld, 1997). For instance, the Kent Court decided that due process rights should be applied to juveniles to ensure justice.

Although the American juvenile justice pendulum has slowly swung toward juvenile accountability and punitiveness (Feld, 1997), the Chinese juvenile justice system is at a crossroad. It should be noted that a large component of the Chinese juvenile justice system has been aimed at lowering recidivism rates. However, sealing juveniles’ criminal records has led to practical difficulties in testing the system’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism rates. Ironically, the introduction of the new chapter on juvenile criminal proceedings in the Chinese Criminal Procedure Code (1996) may substantially strengthen the components that criminalize juvenile offenders and increase the system’s punitive character, which seems contrary to its legislative intentions (H. Zhang, 2013).

Discussion and Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Chinese juvenile justice system is in a time of rapid transition. With its burgeoning juvenile population, China clearly needs a well-functioning, far-reaching, and effective juvenile justice system. Whether juvenile justice policies should always be set at national level is a question worthy of investigation. Given the sheer size of the country and the uneven regional distributions of juvenile crime, a more tailored, localized juvenile justice approach deserves greater attention. To do so, local criminal justice agencies and researchers can form an alliance to promote evidence-based policy making and theory-based program evaluations.

Chinese juvenile justice is gradually maturing into its own system with a defined philosophy. As a fundamental principle, giving priority to education rather than punishment needs to be reiterated, despite countering voices and practices calling for harsher treatment of juvenile offenders (H. Zhang, 2015). Fortunately, in the context of restorative justice, a balanced approach that focuses both on education and on juvenile offender accountability seems possible (Weijers, 1999). In fact, the Chinese juvenile justice system has already begun to embrace a restorative approach by diverting juvenile offenders from criminal tribunals and juvenile prosecution. The ongoing merger and reorganization of juvenile criminal tribunals and family tribunals remains an experiment awaiting assessment of its outcomes. Only rigorously designed scientific research can answer the question if the merger is indeed a successful shift toward achieving the dual goals of protecting neglected or abused juveniles and holding accountable those who violated the law.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Hongwei Zhang is a professor in the School of Humanities and Juvenile & Family Law Research Center at Jinan University, China. His research concentrates on juvenile delinquency and justice, domestic violence, and criminal law. He earned his PhD from Sam Houston State University in 2004.

Ni “Phil” He is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. His research interests are in the areas of policing, comparative criminology, and application of quantitative methods. His recent book on Chinese Criminal Trials (Springer, 2014) was based on a 2-year (2009-2011) empirical study funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

References

(2004). Survey on juvenile delinquency among floating population in Guangzhou. Youth Exploration, 6, 47-50. (In Chinese)

Bao

Haas

(2009). Social change, life strain, and delinquency among Chinese urban adolescents. Sociological Focus, 42, 285-305.

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Braithwaite

(2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2014). Basic statistics of correctional work-study schools. Retrieved from https://www-moe-gov-cn.web.bisu.edu.cn/s78/A03/moe_560/s8492/s8493/201412/t20141218_181975.html

Curran

D. J.

(1998). Economic reform, the floating population, and crime: The transformation of social control in China. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14, 262-280.

Epstein

(2003). Juvenile delinquency and reformatory education in China: A retrospective. In Beauchamp

E. R.

(Ed.), Comparative education reader (pp. 163-182). New York, NY: Routledge.

Fagan

(2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolving border disputes. The Future of Children, 18, 81-118.

Feinerman

J. V.

(1985). The disposition of cases involving juvenile delinquents in the People’s Republic of China. Pacific Basin Law Journal, 4(1-2), 1-13.

10.

Feld

B. C.

(1997). Abolish the juvenile court: Youthfulness, criminal responsibility, and sentencing policy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 68-136.

11.

Friday

P. C.

(1998). Crime and crime prevention in China: A challenge to the development-crime nexus. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14, 296-314.

12.

Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. (2015). Working report on juvenile comprehensive trial work. Guangzhou, China: Author. (In Chinese)

13.

(2014). The politics of numbers: Crime statistics in China. In Cao

Sun

Hebenton

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Chinese criminology (pp. 147-159). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Huang

(2013). First juveniles police brigade established in Guangxi’s Qinzhou. Retrieved from http://news.cpd.com.cn/n3559/c19312166/content.html

15.

Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). New progress in the judicial protection of human rights in China. Beijing: Author.

16.

Jin

(2015, October 27). The “forgotten” work-study education. Guangming Daily. (In Chinese). Retrieved from http://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2015-10/27/nw.D110000gmrb_20151027_1-05.htm

17.

Juvenile Protection Law. (1991). Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Beijing, China: The People’s Republic of China.

18.

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Law (1999). Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Beijing, China: The People’s Republic of China.

19.

Leng

Chiu

(1985). Criminal justice in post-Mao China: Analysis and documents. Albany: State University of New York Press.

20.

Liu

(2007). Developing comparative criminology and the case of China: An introduction. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 3-8.

21.

MacBean

(1999). Young offenders and juvenile justice. In Benewick

Wingrove

(Eds.), China in the 1990s. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, 94-104.

22.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2012). China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

23.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2013). China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

24.

Qiao

Huang

(2013). Floating populations across provinces in China: Analysis based on the sixth census. Population and Development, 19, 13-28. (In Chinese)

25.

Shen

(2016). The role of the study–work school: A Chinese case study on early intervention and child-centred juvenile justice. Youth Justice, 16, 95-112.

26.

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (1991). Juvenile protection law. Beijing, China: The People’s Republic of China.

27.

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (1999). Juvenile delinquency prevention law. Beijing, China: The People’s Republic of China.

28.

Tienda

Haskins

(2011). Immigrant children: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 21(1), 3-18.

29.

Wang

(2016). Immigrants, Hukou system and criminal offense. Population Research, 40(2), 63-74. (In Chinese)

30.

Weijers

(1999). The double paradox of juvenile justice. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 329-351.

31.

Wong

D. S. W.

(1999). Delinquency control and juvenile justice in China. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32, 27-41.

32.

Wong

D. S. W.

(2001). Changes in juvenile justice in China. Youth & Society, 32, 492-509.

33.

Wong

D. S. W.

(2004). Juvenile protection and delinquency prevention policies in China. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(Suppl. 1), 52-66.

34.

Wong

D. S. W.

Mok

L. W.

(2011). Restorative justice and practices in China. British Journal of Community Justice, 8(3), 23-35.

35.

Zhang

(2013). Written before revision of juvenile delinquency prevention law. Research on Juvenile Delinquency Prevention, 4, 89-92. (In Chinese).

36.

Zhang

(2015). Strengthening juvenile rights or doing the opposite: The legal mysteries of the Chinese juvenile justice system behind the “Li gang-rape case.” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, 10(2), 1-41.

37.

Zhang

Zhao

Ren

Zhao

(2017). Subculture, gang Involvement, and delinquency: A study of incarcerated youth in China. Justice Quarterly, 34, 952-977.

38.

Zhang

(2008). Juvenile delinquency and justice in contemporary China: A critical review of the literature over 15 years. Crime, Law and Social Change, 50, 149-160.

39.

Zhang

(2014). Crime data and criminological research in contemporary China. In Cao

Sun

Hebenton

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Chinese criminology (pp. 160-170). New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Zhang

(2016, May 18). Work-study education: 6 decades. Legality Weekend. (In Chinese), Retrieved from http://news.hexun.com/2016-05-18/183910831.html

41.

Zhang

Lin

Zhou

Qian

(2007). Survey on juvenile delinquency among floating population in Shanghai. Issues on Juvenile Crimes and Delinquency, 5, 24-28. (In Chinese)

42.

Zhang

Wang

(2015). Survey on juvenile delinquency among floating population in Beijing. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Research, 2, 23-28. (In Chinese)

43.

Zhang

Liu

(2007). China’s juvenile delinquency prevention law: The law and the philosophy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(5), 541-554.

44.

Zhao

Cao

(2017). Juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice in China. In Decker

S. H.

Marteache

(Eds.), International handbook of juvenile justice (2nd ed., pp. 155-172). New York, NY: Springer.

45.

Zhao

Zhang

Liu

(2015). China’s juvenile justice: A system in transition. In Winterdyk

(Ed.), Juvenile justice: International perspectives, models, and trends (pp. 137-162). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

46.

Zhou

(2015, May 28). Juvenile floating populations exceeds 70% of juvenile delinquency. Legal Daily, Retrieved from http://news.ifeng.com/a/20150528/43854366_0.shtml