人性的呼喚：治理理性與台灣性侵害防治政策

The Call of Human Nature: Governmentality and Sexual Offence Prevention Policy in Taiwan

10.6464/TJSSTM.200804.0069

吳建昌(Kevin Chien-Chang Wu)

人性 ； 治理理性 ； 風險 ； 預警原則 ； 性侵害 ； 台灣 ； human nature ； governmentality ； risk ； precautionary principle ； sexual offence ； Taiwan

科技醫療與社會

6期（2008 / 04 / 01）

69 - 110

繁體中文

最近十餘年來，台灣女性平權及保障之立法運動及行政管制方興未艾，性侵害防治政策更是其中最重要的議題之一。不僅重大刑案如白曉燕案、彭婉如案撼動社會大眾之觀感，媒體經常出現「XX之狼」之報導評論，性侵害防治相關法令亦修訂頻繁。法律對於人之治理，乃基於其對人性之理解，而這整個性侵害防治法律制度與治理策略之重大變革，尤其牽涉到對於性侵害加害人「人性」之重新認識。Castel 在From Dangerousness to Risk中認為，對於精神疾病患者之管制，已經由強調危險（danger）之專家規訓，過渡到強調風險（risk）之行政治理，而多位犯罪學者亦宣告新自由主義風險概念在英美刑事政策制訂之主導地位，而台灣在移植美國性侵害防治政策之同時，是否呈現出前述學者所描述之線性進化呢？或者，在這一波風險導向之刑事政策風潮中，台灣刑事政策呈現出一種遲滯或不規則之發展呢？以英美風險導向刑事政策之文獻回顧為基礎，本文檢視包含風險治理（risk governance）與預警原則（precautionary principle）之治理理性（governmentality）操作架構，在台灣性侵害防治政策演變中所呈現之不規則性，此種不規則性所展現之策略交雜現象所立基之「人性」認知之破碎性，以及此種發展所具有之社會及倫理意涵。

Since about ten years ago, in Taiwan, there have been booming legislative and administrative activities for female equality and protection. Sexual offence prevention policy is one the most important issues in the trend. Severe sexual crimes shocked society. Media abounds with reports and comments on sexual offenders. Statutes and regulations regarding sexual offence prevention have been revised frequently. Law governs people based on its understanding of human nature. The evolution of sexual offence prevention policy especially involves re-configuring sexual offenders' human nature. In From Dangerousness to Risk, Castel argued that the management of mentally ill offenders has transited from expert discipline of dangerousness to administrative governance of risk. Many criminologists also argued that the neoliberal risk concept is becoming dominant in criminal justice policy making in the United Kingdom and the United States. Following the U.S. trend, does Taiwan's policy making in sexual offence prevention have the abovementioned linear evolution? Or, is there sluggishness or irregularity in the development of Taiwan's sexual offence policy making? Based on a review of the U.S. and U.K. literature on risk-oriented criminal justice policy, this paper examines the operation of governmentality in Taiwan's sexual offence policy making. As governmentality includes both risk governance and precautionary principle, the paper shows the irregularity of Taiwan's sexual offence prevention policy. It argues that the irregularity in adopting risk governance policy originates from the fragmented configurations of human nature. Finally, it addresses the social and ethical implications of the irregularity in sexual offence policy making.

1. 陳慧女、林明傑(2007)。台灣這二十年來性侵害研究之脈絡與趨勢。臺大社會工作學刊，14，211-259。
   連結：
2. 龍佛衛、薛克利、楊聰財(2005)。台灣地區性侵害防治責任醫院現況。台灣精神醫學，19(1)，47-55。
   連結：
3. 立法院(1994)，院會記錄。立法院公報。Vol 83:126-159
4. Kansas v. Hendricks(1997). U.S. Vol 521: Supreme Court; 346
5. 立法院(1997)，委員會記錄。立法院公報。Vol 86:83-101
6. 立法院(1997)，院會記錄。立法院公報。Vol 88:111-142
7. 中國時報楊肅民(2003)，〈回頭向上出不轉路轉〉。11月16日。http://intermargins.net/Forum/2000/0008pedo_debate/megan's%20law05a.htm，Accessed July 17, 2007。
8. 中央社(2003)，〈學者反對假釋華岡之狼…建議老師到監獄上課〉。7月9日。http://intermargins.net/Forum/2000/0008pedo_debate/megan's%20law05.htm，Accessed July 17, 2007。
9. Burchell, G.(ed.),Gordon, C.(ed.),Miller, P.(ed.)(1991).The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.London:Harvester Wheatsheaf.
10. Burgess-Jackson, K.(1996).Rape: A Philosophical Investigation.Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing Company.
11. Dean, M.(1999).Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society.London:Sage Publications.
12. Douard, J.(2007).Loathing the Sinner, Medicalizing the Sin: Why Sexually Violent Predator Statutes are Unjust.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,30,36-48.
13. Douglas, M.(1992).Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory.London:Routledge.
14. Erickson, P.E.(2002).The Legal Standard of Volitional Impairment: An Analysis of Substantive Due Process and the United States Supreme Court's Decision in Kansas v. Hendricks.Journal of Criminal Justice,30,1-10.
15. Ericson, R. V.(ed.),Doyle, A.(ed.)(2003).Risk and Morality.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
16. Feeley, M.(2003).Crime, Social Order, and the Rise of Neo-conservative Politics.Theoretical Criminology,7(1),111-130.
17. Foucault, M.(1995).Discipline and Punish.New York:Random House, Inc..
18. Foucault, M.(1990).The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction.New York:Vintage Books.
19. Garland, D.(2001).The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
20. Hacking, I.(1991).The Social Construction of What?.Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
21. Hannah-Moffat, K.(2005).Criminogenic Need and Transformative Risk Subject: Hybridizations of Risk/need in Penality.Punishment and Society,7(1),29-51.
22. Laws, D.R.、王家駿譯(2001)。性侵害再犯之防治。台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
23. Moran, K.L.(2005).Civil Commitment for Sexually Violent Predators: A Risk Debate in New York State. New York State Psychiatric Association.The Bulletin,48(4),1+4.
24. Morse, S.J.(2004).Preventive Confinement of Dangerous Offenders.Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics,32(1),56-72.
25. Nelken, D.(ed.)(1994).The Futures of Criminology.London:Sage.
26. O''Malley, P.(2004).Risk, Uncertainty and Government.Sydney:The Glasshouse Press.
27. Pratt, J.(2000).Sex Crimes and New Punitiveness.Behavioral Sciences and the Law,18,135-151.
28. Prothrow-Stith, D.(2004).Strengthening the Colloboration between Public Health and Criminal Justice to Prevent Violence.Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics,32(1),82-88.
29. Rosner, R.(ed.)(2003).Principles and Practices of Forensic Psychiatry.London:Arnold.
30. Simon, J.(1998).Managing the Monstrous: Sex Offenders and the New Penalogy.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,4(1/2),452-467.
31. Sommer, M. H.(2000).Sex, Law and Society in Late Imperial China.Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.
32. Stone, A. A.(1976).Mental Health and Law: A System in Transition.Rockville:National Institute of Mental Health.
33. Sutherland, E. H.(1950).The Diffusion of Sexual Psychopath Laws.American Journal of Sociology,56,142-148.
34. Tadros, V.(1998).Between Governance and Discipline: The Law and Michel Foucault.Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,18(1),75-103.
35. Welsh, B. C.,Farrington, D. P.(2005).Evidence-based Crime Prevention: Conclusions and Directions for a Safer Society.Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,47(2),337-354.
36. Zonana, H. V.,Norko, M. A.(1999).Sexual Predators.The Psychiatric Clinics of North America: Forensic Psychiatry,22(1),109-128.
37. Zonana, H.,Abel, G.,Bradford, J.(1999).Dangerous Sex Offenders: A Task Force Report of the American Psychiatric Association.Washington, D. C.:American Psychiatric Association.
38. 甘添貴(1987)。刑法各論。台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
39. 周煌智、李俊穎、林世棋、陳筱萍(2004)。性侵害犯罪加害人的鑑定原則與處遇計畫之探討。醫事法學，12(3/4)，35-51。
40. 周愫嫻、張祥議(2003)。突圍：論性侵害犯罪人再社會化之可能性。月旦法學雜誌，96，148-159。
41. 林山田(1995)。刑法各罪論。台北市:林山田。
42. 林明傑(2004)。性犯罪之再犯率、危險評估及未來法律展望。律師雜誌，301，74-97。
43. 林明傑、張晏綾、陳英明、沈勝昂(2003)。性侵害犯罪加害人之處遇－較佳方案及三個爭議方案。月旦法學雜誌，96，160-185。
44. 林明傑、董子毅(2005)。臺灣性罪犯靜態再犯危險評估量表（TSOSRAS）之建立及其外在效度之研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，1(1)，49-110。
45. 林芳玫(1998)。談強姦公訴罪：程序正義 實質正義 性別正義的結合。政策月刊，36，23-26。
46. 林憲、林信男(1986)。精神鑑定。台北市:橘景文化事業股份有限公司。
47. 林懷慈(2005)。賦性宣淫：清乾隆朝強姦案之解讀。東吳大學歷史系研究生學報，1，47-90。
48. 許春金(1996)。犯罪學。台北市:三民書局。
49. 陳炯旭(2005)。衛生署委託研究計畫衛生署委託研究計畫,衛生署。
50. 黃富源(2003)。性侵害犯罪加害人登記與公告制度與其法律問題。月旦法學雜誌，96，128-147。
51. 鄭添成、陳英明、楊士隆(2004)。性侵害加害人處遇─國內外現行主要制度評述。犯罪與行事司法研究，2，78-107。

1. 董道興,黃健,曾昱哲,陳珮恩,沈勝昂(2019)。桃園地區性侵害加害人接受社區處遇後之再犯風險評估與相關因子探討。犯罪學期刊，21(1)，66-99。
2. 董道興、黃健、沈勝昂(2018)。桃園地區性侵害加害人之再犯風險評估相關因子探討。臺灣性學學刊，24(1)，73-92。
3. 韓德彥(2022)。生命教育融入三國演義課程之遊戲式學習效益。通識學刊：理念與實務，10(1)，139-169+171。
4. 李俊增(2009)。法律、規訓與治理—現代權力關係中之法律形式。政治與社會哲學評論，30，1-59。
5. 彭偉旗(2022)。探究性侵害加害人處遇團體之倫理議題。諮商與輔導，444，39-42。
6. (2009)。「虞犯」：真的道德恐慌，假的風險治理。社區發展季刊，128，60-72。