美国少年司法的发展史就是一部少年罪错专门控制机制从成年人犯罪控制机制中的“分流”史：包含少年矫正运动、少年法院诞生等在内的少年法院运动是少年司法“分流”的第一次尝试；源自“布鲁克林计划”、以暂缓起诉为内容的审前分流系联邦法院系统在犯罪控制方面的“分流”尝试，但自1974年联邦少年司法与罪错预防法案通过后少年案件事实上已交由地方法院审理，因此审前分流并不构成现代美国少年司法“分流”之主体；美国少年法院程序中的案件受理与筛选系少年法院体系中的再次“分流”，才构成现代美国少年司法“分流”机制之主体。就对我国附条件不起诉制度产生启发与借鉴而言，需要区分少年司法“分流”理念与机制：从理念上讲，需要正视文明社会儿童的独立地位，正视少年独特的身心特点，坚持“儿童利益最大化”的原则，尽量减少少年在正式司法体系中的涉足，从而减少由此带来的“交叉感染”与“标签效应”；就机制而言，需要回归到少年司法的语境中来探讨，不必对附条件不起诉制度的适用条件、适用位阶、检察裁量权的监督制约提出过多的批评，而应聚焦于罪错少年的处遇必要性、降低诉前羁押、培育和整合社会支持资源等“真问题”。

The history of juvenile justice in the United States is a history of “ diversion” , which led the specialized control of juvenile delinquency from the control of adult crime. The juvenile court movement, including the juvenile correction movement and the birth of juvenile court, was the first attempt of juvenile diversion.?The pretrial diversion, originated from “the Brooklyn Plan” and with the content of deferred prosecution, was the “diversion” attempt in the federal court system.However, since The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act became law in 1974, all juvenile cases were virtually placed in the state courts.Therefore, the main body of modern American juvenile diversion was not constituted by pretrial diversion but by the intake process, which was “diversion” again in the juvenile court system. In terms of inspiration and reference for China's conditional non-prosecution system, it is necessary to distinguish the concept and mechanism of “diversion” in juvenile justice: From the perspective of concept, it is necessary to face up to the independent status of children in civilized society, to face up to the unique physical and mental characteristics of juveniles, to adhere to the principle of "the best interests of children", and to minimize the involvement of juveniles in the formal judicial system，so as to reduce "the contamination" and "the label" .?In terms of mechanism,it is of great importance to return to the context of juvenile justice, not laying too much criticism on the application condition, application status, and the supervision of prosecutorial discretion, but focusing on the “real” problem, such as the necessity of treatment, the reduction of custody before prosecution, the cultivation and integration of social support resources.