論保釋制度─以美國法為借鏡

Bail Reform: Lesson from United State

10.6342/NTU.2013.02292

張琬婷

保釋制度 ； 具保 ； 責付 ； 限制住居 ； 保釋權 ； 電子監控 ； 特殊搜索 ； bail system ； right to bail ； electric control ； the bail reform act ； discretion to bail

國立臺灣大學法律學系學位論文

2013年

碩士

王兆鵬

繁體中文

中文摘要 本文原係希望藉由探討美國法的保釋制度，而發現美國法利用保釋制度避免羈押的原因，而在研究過程中發現，美國法之所以得以藉由保釋制度有效避免羈押，最根本的原因在於美國法將保釋視為被告的權利，美國自憲法根本保障被告獲得保釋的權利，要求法院不得任意、恣意剝奪被告的保釋權。為此，法院除了必須以如何釋放被告為優先考量，不得任意進入是否拒絕保釋的思考層次外，在考量是否拒絕被告保釋時，也必須由檢察官證明，被告確實有無法藉由保釋制度預防逃亡、滅證、再犯的危險，法院才能拒絕被告保釋。 然而，與此相對，我國法下並無保釋權的概念，更而甚者，我國法並未節制法院應該優先考量被告的保釋。在我國法的架構下，美國法上所稱的「保釋」只是羈押的替代手段。亦即，無論被告涉犯的罪行或輕或重，法院均優先考量被告有無羈押的原因與必要，並在此時同時考量有無以保釋替代羈押的機會。亦即，在我國法下的保釋制度與羈押間，並無優先考量保釋的概念。 二者雖然僅是觀念的差異，但因為這個觀念的差異，導致我國是以羈押為原則，例外在被告逃亡、串證、再犯風險不高時，才有獲得保釋的機會，且由此衍生，保釋是被告無庸被羈押的恩惠，而非權利，我國法為此更不重視被告因保釋可能受到的人身自由、隱私、財產上的限制。最顯著的例子，即是我國法容許身為被告對造的檢察官為保釋的決定，由檢察官來決定是否拘束、限制被告的人身自由、隱私以及財產，此係嚴重侵害被告獲得釋放的權利的立法。 有鑑於此，本文即以扭轉我國法對於保釋與羈押的概念為軸心，探討美國法院運作保釋制度的概念，以及其如何重重地限制法官拒絕保釋的權力，更探討美國法現行的保釋手段有無值得我國法效法的地方，希冀藉此，完整我國法的保釋制度，增加被告在審判過程中獲得釋放、免於羈押的機會。

Abstract I wrote this paper is for purpose of discovering why United States used Bail System to avoid taking people into custody by studying the bail system of the United State. However, in the process, I found the most basic reason that the bail the system of United States may avoid taking people into custody effectively, will lie in that United States regards bail as the defendant's right, the United State law radically safeguards the right from the constitution which the defendant will obtain releases on bail, will request the court not to have to deprive the defendant to release on bail the power willfully. Therefore, how does the court except have take to release the defendant as first to consider, does not have to enter willfully whether resists outside the ponder level which releases on bail, in considers whether resists when the defendant releases on bail, also must by the public prosecutor prove, the defendant has truly is unable because of to release on bail the system prevention to become a fugitive, to extinguish the danger which the card, violates again, the court can resist the defendant to release on bail. However, with this relative, under our country law and not releases on bail the power the concept, and really, our country law by no means controls the court to be supposed first to consider defendant's releasing on bail. The substitution method which in the American law calls “releases on bail” only is takes into custody which under our country's method construction regardless of the defendant fords the crime which violates either light or heavy, the court first considers the reason and the necessity which whether there is the defendant does take into custody, and whether there is simultaneously considers in this time releases on bail the opportunity which the substitution takes into custody, releases on bail the system under our country law with to take into custody, and does not have the concept which first considers releases on bail. Although the two are only the idea differences, but because of this idea difference, causes our country is take takes into custody as the principle, the exception becomes a fugitive when the defendant, the string card, violates the risk again not high, only then has the opportunity which obtains releases on bail, from this also grows, releases on bail is the defendant does not need kindness which takes into custody, but the non-right, our country law does not take in the personal freedom, the privacy, the property limit for this which because the defendant releases on bail possibly received. The most remarkable example, is our country law allowed the body for the defendant to the public prosecutor who makes for the decision which releases on bail, by the public prosecutor decided whether restricts, limits defendant's personal freedom, the privacy as well as the property, this is violates the defendant to obtain the release seriously the right legislation. Given that this paper namely take reverses our country law regarding to release on bail with the concept which takes into custody as an axle center, discusses the American Court operation to release on bail the system the concept, as well as how does it layer on layer limit the authority which judge resists to release on bail, whether there is discusses the American law presently to release on bail the method to be worth our country law imitation the place, hopes for takes advantage of this, integrity our country method releases on bail the system, increases the defendant to obtain the release in the trial process, avoid the opportunity which takes into custody.

1. 2.王兆鵬，刑事訴訟講義，元照，2009年。
   連結：
2. 1.崔雲飛，無罪推定之具體實踐－以歐洲人權法院判例法為核心，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2006年7月。
   連結：
3. 2. 魏潮宗，拘捕後迅速移送法院之研究，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2009年1月。
   連結：
4. 3. 黃慧儀，羈押處遇之憲法權利－以美國法為借鏡， 國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年6月。
   連結：
5. 4.李建良(2009)， 押牢裡的自由與尊嚴－受羈押被告之憲法權利與司法救濟，台灣法學雜誌，120期。
   連結：
6. 8.程明修(2009)，別說羈押法沒被「特別權力關係」的惡靈附身－司法院釋字第六五三號解釋簡評，台灣法學雜誌，124期。
   連結：
7. 1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Pretrial Release and Detention: The Bail Reform Act of 1984(1988).
   連結：
8. 4. Elsa de Haas, Antiquities of Bail: Origin and Historical Development in Criminal Cases to The Year 1275 (1940).
   連結：
9. 6. Joshua Dressler & Alan C. Michaels, Understanding Criminal Procedure (4th ed, LexisNexis (2006)
   連結：
10. 9. Peter M Carlson & Judith Simon Garrett, Prison and Jail Administration Practice and Theory (2nd ed, Jones and Bartlett Publishers 20, 2007)
    連結：
11. 5. Margo Schlander, Inmate Litigation, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1555 (2003)
    連結：
12. 6. Michael Cameron Friedman, Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Provision of Prison Medical Care: Challenging the Deliberate Indifference Standard, 45 VAND. L. REV. 921 (1992).
    連結：
13. 9. Shima Baradaran, Due Process, Predictive Justice & the Presumption of Innocence, Crim. Prof Blog Editor (2011).
    連結：
14. 13. Wayne H. Thomas, Jr. ,Bail Reform in America (1976)
    連結：
15. （一）美國聯邦最高法院判決
    連結：
16. 1. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006)
    連結：
17. 3. Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984)
    連結：
18. 4. Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524 (1952)
    連結：
19. 7. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)
    連結：
20. 8. Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160 (1948)
    連結：
21. 10. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937)
    連結：
22. 11. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)
    連結：
23. 12. Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952)
    連結：
24. 13. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992)
    連結：
25. 14. Sell v. U.S, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)
    連結：
26. 16. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
    連結：
27. 17. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
    連結：
28. 18. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)
    連結：
29. 19. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)
    連結：
30. 20. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228 (1896)
    連結：
31. 一、中文專書
32. 1. David Garland著，周盈成譯，〈控制的文化-當代社會的犯罪與社會秩序〉，巨流圖書公司，2006年。
33. 3.勞倫斯．傅利曼，吳懿婷譯，二十世紀美國法律史，商周，2005年。
34. 二、中文碩士論文
35. 三、中文期刊論文
36. 1.王兆鵬(2009)，釋字第六五三號之評釋－舊羈押法理之崩解，月旦法學雜誌，172期。
37. 2.尤伯祥(2008)，偵查中羈押制度與人權保障實務學術研討會，台灣法學雜誌，120期。
38. 3.李茂生(2009)，釋字六五四號羈押法檢討座談會主題演說，台灣法學雜誌，126期。
39. 5. 林茂弘（2011），〈談檢察官之違法限制出境處分〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，180期，頁134。
40. 6.柯耀程 (2005)，〈覓保暫押〉，《月旦法學教室》， 32期。
41. 7.吳光陸(1996)，「淺談具保之若干問題」，高雄律師會訊，第1卷，第12期 。
42. 9. 張麗卿（2001），羈押審查的決定與救濟，月旦法學雜誌，72期。
43. 四、政府出版品
44. 1.監察院九十八年度專案調本研究報告－監獄、看守所收容人處遇、超收及教化問題之檢討。
45. 2. 臺灣彰化地方法院檢察署委託研究案報告，電子監控法制化之研究。
46. 五、英文專書
47. 2. Craig Hemmens, Current Legal Issues in Criminal Justice (Roxbury Publishing Company, (2007)
48. 3. Ellen Hoehstedler Steury & Nancy Frank, Criminal Court Process, Wadsworth Pub Co (1995).
49. 5. John L. Weinberg, Federal bail and detention handbook,§ 3.03, New York City : Practising Law Institute (2010).
50. 7. Lynn S. Branham, The Law and Policy of Sentencing and Corrections (7th ed. Thomson/West, (2005)
51. 8. Michael G. Collins, Section 1983 Litigation (2nd ed. Boston, Hones and Barlett Publishers, (2005)
52. 10. Richard G. Singer, Criminal Procedure II：From Bail to Jail Second Edition, Wolters Kluwer (2008).
53. 五、英文期刊論文
54. 1. Cathy Lynne Bosworth, Pretrial Detainment: The Fruitless Search for the Presumption of Innocence, 47 Ohio St. L. J. 277 (1986);
55. 2. David C. Gorlin, Evaluating Punishement in Purgatory: The Need to Separate Pretrial Detainees’ Conditions-of-Confinement Claims from Inadequate Eighth Amendment Analysis, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 417 (2009)
56. 3. Debra T. Landis, Conditions relating to placement of more than one prisoner per cell as violation of inmates' federal constitutional rights, 85 A.L.R. Fed. 308 (1987 )
57. 4. Marc J. Posner, The Estelle Medical Professional Judgment Standard: The Right of Those in State Custody to Receive High-Cost Medical Treatments, 18 AM. J.L. & MED. 347 (1992)
58. 7. Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Conditions of Confinement-The Duty to Grant the Greatest Possible Liberty for Pretrial Detainees, 43 No.2 Crim. Law Bulletin ART 3 (2007).
59. 8. Samuel Wiseman, Discrimination, Coercion, And the Bail Reform Act Of 1984: The Loss of The Core Constitution Protection of the Excessive Bail Clause,Fordham Urb. L.J. 121 (2009).
60. 10. Steven Bennett, The Privacy & Procedural Due Process Rights of Hunger Striking Prisoners, 58 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1157 (1983).
61. 11. Sylvia Pollock, The Conditions of Pretrial Confinement, 17 Houston L. rev. 873 (1980).
62. 12. Vera Institute of Justice, Programs in Criminal Justice Reform Ten-Year Report 1961-1971（May 1972）
63. 六、美國法院判決
64. 2. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)
65. 5. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825(1994)
66. 6. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)
67. 9. Mover v. Peabody, 212 U. S. 78(1909)
68. 15. Stack v. Boyle , 342 U.S. 1(1951)
69. （二）巡迴法院判決
70. 1. Zant v. Prevatte, 286 S.E.2d 715 (Ga. 1982)
71. 2. Thor v. Superior Court, 855 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1993)
72. 3. Pugh v. Rainwater, 557 F.2d 1189, 17 (5th Cir. 1977)
73. 4. Singletary v. Costello, 665 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1996)
74. 七、日文專書
75. 1.水谷規男，未決拘禁の替代處分，福井厚編，《未決拘禁改革の課題と展望》， 東京：株式會社 日本評論社。
76. 2.藤本哲也(1991),現代アメリカ犯罪学事典，勁草書房。