我國少年事件處理法在少年保護與刑罰之分野上，設計立法移送及司法裁量移送機制，將部分少年排除於少年法院保護體系之外，然立法移送機制是犯罪控制之手段，而司法裁量移送之要件極為寬鬆，此等機制之設計，使少年極易被排除於少年法院保護體系，混淆少年法院與少年刑事法院之分野。我國應重新思考少年移送機制之設計，本文主張少年犯罪原則上應由少年法院依保護事件處理，如法律政策仍選擇維持少年移送機制，則應刪除立法強制移送模式，僅留司法裁量移送模式，個案審酌衡量少年之矯正可能性與對社會可能造成之傷害。法律並應更精細地具體化法院於移送時應審酌之要件，審理程序應召開辯論庭，賦予少年程序權，以建立較為完善之少年移送機制。

How should we treat juveniles who commit crimes? Should we focus on rehabilitation? Or should retribution be emphasized instead? While it is rather difficult to make a choice between these two treatments, retribution policy is often chosen—as a means to try to deter juveniles from committing crime—when the juvenile crime rate begins to rise. Such policy, however, is not in the best interests of the child. In practice, either a statutory waiver or a judicial waiver is used to move a juvenile case from juvenile court to criminal court for prosecution and punishment. But the statutory waiver is a tool of crime control; it does not serve juveniles well. Moreover, the requirements in a judicial waiver are not precise enough. There was thus no differentiation between the juvenile court and the criminal court. In this article, it is argued that most juvenile cases should be dealt with in juvenile court. The decision to send a juvenile to criminal court should be made carefully and only serves as a rare exception. If the waiver system is to be kept, it is necessary to eliminate the statutory waiver and retain the judicial waiver only. The requirements in a judicial waiver should be established more precisely. And the court should always have a hearing when trying to decide whether to transfer a juvenile to criminal court.