本文從闡明少年健全自我成長權出發，藉以解釋針對少年反社會性行為法令體系的安排；並以兩種不同的社會化理念做比較，一種係單向的客體被動的條件化過程，另一種係雙向主體互動的溝通交流過程，而以後者來解釋八六年少年事件處理法的修正主旨；並整理此法令體系，從同心圓的三個層級，分別於少年不良行為、虞犯行為、犯罪行為的不同階段，指出其不同的權責與相關規定；並依少年健全自我成長權的角度，指出不同階段的回流機制與少年事件程序的保護性規定。最後，本文依前揭的法令體系所開展出的角度，加上親師法律權責的角度，共同來探討親師的法治教育角色，並會整為「執法者」、「管理者」、「輔導者」三個角色而作分析與比較。本文總結認為，「執法者」與「管理者」的親師法治教育角色，仍未脫離舊的社會化理念，不僅與現今的法律體制不符，亦與當今的教育理念相齟齬，唯有採行「輔導者」的親師法治教育角色，方與前揭的少年健全成長權或法令體系相一致。

Teacher and parents are troubled with the youth delinquency, especially as it is involved with legal matters. How do we treat the delinquent behaviors of students? When and to what extent do we need to ask the police to step in and to take over the matter? Above all, what kind of role should a teacher play in dealing with student behavior problems? What is a suitable approach for teachers to adopt in terms of law-related education? I will explore the problems in respective of the reform of the juvenile legal systems in Taiwan. The focus will be to introduce the system and its underlying idea, i.e. to grant the youth their rights to self-fulfilled growth. Furthermore, three teachers' approachs to law-related education in school, i.e., law-enforcer, manager, or counselor, will be examined in line with the reform.