The Role of the Study–Work School: A Chinese Case Study on Early Intervention and Child-Centred Juvenile Justice
| Published date | 01 August 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225415601250 |
| Date | 01 August 2016 |
| Author | Anqi Shen |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
601250YJJ0010.1177/1473225415601250Youth JusticeShen
research-article2015
Article
Youth Justice
2016, Vol. 16(2) 95 –112
The Role of the Study–Work
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
School: A Chinese Case Study
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225415601250
yjj.sagepub.com
on Early Intervention and
Child-Centred Juvenile Justice
Anqi Shen
Abstract
Despite governmental and cultural differences, many jurisdictions are experiencing common tensions
between care and control within juvenile justice. The study–work school is an early intervention measure
in China aiming at child protection and crime prevention. Relying on empirical data, this article seeks to
explore some characteristics of the study–work school, the role it plays and the challenges facing it. It is
hoped that the findings here will inform local policy and practice, make contributions to the increasing
international body of literature on comparative juvenile justice studies and help a better understanding of
the implementation of global policy in local settings.
Keywords
child protection, China, early intervention, juvenile justice, study–work school
Introduction
Despite considerable governmental and cultural variations, many jurisdictions are experi-
encing common tensions within juvenile justice in designing measures to prevent future
law-breaking and developing mechanisms to respond to past offences (Muncie, 2015).
There has been ‘a near global consensus that all children have a right to protection, to
participation, to personal development and to basic material provision’ (Muncie and
Goldson, 2006: 210–211) perhaps as a result of policy transfer and international agree-
ments. In the field of comparative juvenile justice, two common questions are frequently
asked: first, how different systems tackle a shared problem; second, how different juris-
dictions, shaped by local culture, history and political arrangement, implement interna-
tional agreements and global trends in the protection of juveniles and young people. This
Corresponding author:
Anqi Shen, School of Social Sciences, Business and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK.
Email: anqi.shen@tees.ac.uk
96
Youth Justice 16(2)
article uses the study–work school – a Chinese case study – to seek to answer these
questions.
Admittedly, China is a country with a culture of punitiveness (Bakken, 2008) and the
Chinese criminal justice system maintains many traditional punitive principles and prac-
tices and differs quite significantly from those typically found in the Western, developed
world. However, youth justice in China is an exception and operates on similar core prin-
ciples based on social reintegration (Lo et al., 2006; Shen and Hall, 2015).
In China, social policy, including juvenile justice policy, is deeply rooted in Confucian
philosophy. Confucianism emphasises human agency to be guided by moral rules which
are thought to be possibly brought about by education (Dikötter, 2002). Over the years,
the function of education in shaping individuals’ thoughts and behaviours has been widely
recognised in the Chinese society (Shen and Hall, 2015).
Second, Confucius encourages amending faults by claiming that a fault that is not
amended is a real fault (Ding, 2008: 79). For children and young people, the traditional
saying – ‘a lang-zi (prodigal son) who returns is more precious than gold’ – suggests that
those who have behaved badly can change and that those who have changed should be
accepted and welcomed. The Confucian philosophy forms the cultural basis for a belief in
the rehabilitation of children and young people.
Third, Confucianism acknowledges the inequality of people and thus children, as
weaker members of society, deserve pity, who should not be subjected to punishment
although they may have committed a crime (Bodde, 1973). Instead, they should be guided
to seek self-reform. In this philosophical context, the general juvenile justice principles in
contemporary China have been education, ganhua and rescue (see Law on the Protection
of Minors (LPM) 1991; Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Offending (LPJO) 1999). The
notion of ganhua is based on a Mencian belief. Mencius – a key successor of Confucius
– contends that one can achieve self-improvement only through proper institutional guid-
ance (Dikötter, 2002). Therefore, in responding to juvenile offending, there is a strong
emphasis on prevention, early intervention, rehabilitation through education, the use of
informal mechanisms and the crucial role of the whole society as the initial means to rein-
tegrate young people before legal and punitive sanctions are brought into play (Shen and
Hall, 2015).
Moreover, Chinese people believe in fang-huan-yu-wei-ran – literally, it is better to
deal with the causes before fires break out – and emphasise prevention rather than having
to deal with the consequences of a bad event, such as juvenile offending. Crime preven-
tion is particularly emphasised in the field of child protection. It is in this cultural and
philosophical context that the study–work school has developed in China, as an early
intervention mechanism available exclusively to school-age juveniles, usually at 13 up to
18 years of age.
Broadly speaking, the Chinese Criminal Law (CCL 1997), Law of Compulsory
Education (LCE 1986), LPM 1991 and LPJO 1999 form the legal basis of the study–work
school. In China, while the age of criminal liability is 14, juveniles at ages 14–16 are
criminally liable only when they have committed extremely serious offences, such as
murder, assault causing deaths or grievous bodily harm, rape, robbery, drug trafficking
and so on. To deal with juvenile ‘wrongdoers’ under the ages of criminal liability, the CCL
Shen
97
1997 empowers the courts to order the parent(s) of the juveniles concerned to exercise
control and provides that where necessary, the juvenile may be subjected to ‘shelter for
rehabilitation’ (shou-rong-jiao-yang). Although the law offers no implementation details,
it recognises a need for special facilities for children and juvenile ‘wrongdoers’.
From a different perspective, the LCE 1986 defines the nine-year period of compulsory
education and imposes a legal duty on the parent(s) of any child who has attained to the age
of six to have them enrolled in school. It specifies that local governments may run ‘special-
ised schools’ to enable juveniles who have displayed ‘seriously unhealthy behaviour’ to
receive compulsory education. This ‘legal recommendation’ is echoed in the LPM 1991
which further specifies that ‘specialised schools’ shall offer moral, legal, knowledge, skill
and vocational education. However, ‘seriously unhealthy behaviour’ is not defined in either
statute.
It is the LPJO 1999 that finally defines ‘unhealthy’ (bu-liang) and ‘seriously unhealthy’
(yan-zhong-bu-liang) behaviours and also first spells out the ‘study–work school’. The
legal definitions cover a range of delinquency: Unhealthy behaviours include truancy,
running away from home and staying out at night, carrying controlled weapons, fighting,
swearing or using abusive language, begging with force, stealing, vandalising, gambling,
watching or listening to pornographic programmes, entering entertainment places where
by law and regulations juveniles are not permitted, and other behaviours that seriously
violate the social morality. Seriously unhealthy behaviours refer to wrongdoing that
causes serious harm to society but does not amount to crime that deserves criminal sanc-
tions, including gathering to provoke trouble and disrupting public order; repeatedly car-
rying controlled weapons; repeatedly intercepting and beating up others or begging with
force; disseminating pornographic materials; engaging in promiscuity, unlawful sexual
activities or prostitution; habitual theft; repeatedly participating in illegal gambling; tak-
ing drugs; and other such seriously unhealthy behaviours.
The legal definitions appear to reflect the meanings and sentiments that prevail in pop-
ular culture in China, and the listed behaviours are essentially deviancy in sociological
terms (Lemert, 1967; Kitsuse, 1962) or ‘risk’ and ‘high-risk’ factors typically identified in
youth justice studies in the West (Muncie, 2015). Although legally defining deviance or
risk factors may incur some contestation in culture and theoretical difficulties in legal and
academic circles, Chinese culture and law together adopt a pragmatic approach governed
by the principle that a consensual view of deviance helps to solve problems in practice –
an approach that prioritises problem-solving above both retribution and deterrence (Shen
and Hall, 2015). In this legal and political context, the law specifies that juveniles who
have displayed seriously unhealthy behaviours may be subjected to the study–work school
for their education and rescue. Figure 1 below illustrates the position of the study–work
school in the Chinese administrative system. I will return to this figure later and discuss it
further.
The first study–work school was established in Beijing in 1955 to deal with the ‘bad
kids’ (Shi, 2014; Xiang and Sun, 2009) and gradually they expanded nationwide. Initially,
as suggested by its name, the study–work school provided two lines of activities: study
and labour work which aimed ‘to turn students who had been involved in wrongdoing and
minor law-breaking to self-reliant socialist workers’ (Xinhua News...
To continue reading
Request your trial