美國嚴密社會監控型態與文化演變

Tougher Culture of Social Controls in the United States of America

10.29607/ZHWHGX.200806.0004

鄧煌發(Huang-Fa Teng)

犯罪預防 ； 社會控制 ； 排除性社會控制 ； 包容性社會控制 ； crime preventions ； social controls ； exclusionary social controls ； inclusionary social controls

犯罪學期刊

11卷1期（2008 / 06 / 01）

119 - 143

繁體中文

社會控制似乎蘊含著結構嚴謹、官方、正式、強制、消極、懲罰等意味，而未若犯罪預防之結構寬鬆、民力、非正式、自發、積極、教化等意味之措施或手段。英國知名學者Stanley Cohen依循美國社會學家Ross之主張，更進一步地將社會控制分爲排除性(exclusionary)與包容性(inclusionary)兩大類，前者爲社會控制之主角，後者則爲配角；前者強調懲罰性監禁之犯罪預防措施，後者則以全面性先發之犯罪預防措施爲主，然兩者並非全然對立或互斥，而係互補而終底於相輔相成的效果。 Cohen於1985年所預測的西方社會的社會控制走向，爲其後之犯罪學者Blomberg與Hay等人證實，除死刑之擴大運用一項未如其所預測之結果外，其他如各種排除性社會控制措施受到刑事司法機構大量之採用，而此趨勢並未壓抑包容性社會控制措施之多元發展，反而更受民眾之支持。特別是2001年美國本土受恐怖攻擊事件之後，政府採取極度侵害美國人權之嚴密控制措施，竟也受到美國民眾普遍之支持；部分學者憂心此鍾情於政府嚴密控制之文化，已經悄悄地在美國或西方社會中滋生、茁壯。而此趨勢也證實了Garland之對近代刑罰趨勢發展的論述。 以家庭禮教、內修爲主的台灣社會控制力，截然不同於西方社會控制文化強調之法治監控與外塑效應，尤其發展至今的嚴密社會控制，迥然不同於西方文化內涵的台灣是否照本宣科，值得深入探究。隸屬地球村一員的台灣或美國，抑或英國，透過日益頻繁的知識資訊網絡交流，面對美國強大嚴密社會監控文化的傾銷，台灣應思考其利弊得失，而非一味接納。

The social controls, seem to contain that tightly structured, official, formal, compulsory, passivism, and punishing, etc. The crime preventions, obviously seem to be the opposite. Famous Britain scholar, Stanley Cohen, in accordance with American sociologist Ross' opinion, went further step to divide the social controls into the exclusionary and the inclusionary social controls. The former ones are main actors of social controls, emphasize the punishing imprisonment; the latter ones play supporting roles, rely mainly on comprehensive, preemptive crime preventions. The two sets of social control are not mutually exclusive but complementary. More than 20 years ago, the claims that Cohen predicted the western societies' trends of the social controls crime were verified by scholars Blomberg and Hay. They suggested that except death penalty, the exclusionary besides inclusionary social control measures, received a large amount of adoption by criminal justice systems and even more people's extensive support; especially after the 911 terrific attack in U.S.A, 2001. The US government took the extreme tight social control measures of encroaching on human rights; and received almost American people's support. Some scholars worried about the tougher culture of social controls would affect modern penalty development trend, just as Garland's recommendations. The Confucian or feudal ethical codes of family, repairing for the social control inside of Taiwan are completely different from the Western society, that the ones emphasize rule by law and controlling and molding outside. The tougher social control culture and the tight surveillance of the West should be copied in Taiwan completely? Under the stronger exchange through the internet day by day, and as the members of global village, Taiwan, United States, or United Kingdom, Taiwan should reconsider the dumping of the tight surveillance and tougher social control culture of the United States.

1. Blomberg, T.G.,Hay, C.(2006).Visions of Social Control: Revisited.FL:Florida State University.
2. Blomberg, T.G.,Lucken, K.(2000).American Penology: A History of Control.NY:Aldine de Gruyter.
3. Briathwaite, J.(1989).Crime, Sham, and Reintegration.NY:Cambridge University Press.
4. Burkett, S.R.,Ward, D.A.(1993).A Note on Perceptual Deterence, Religiously Based Moral Condemnation, and Social Control.Criminology,31(1),119-134.
5. Cohen, M.A.,Rust, R.T.,Steen, S.(2002).Measuring Public Perceptions of Appropriate Prison Sentences.Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
6. Cohen, S.(1985).Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification.Cambridge:Polity Press.
7. Foucault, M.(1977).Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.NY:Pantheon.
8. Garland, D.(2001).The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society.IL:University of Chicago Press.
9. Gibbs, J.(1975).Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence.NY:Elsevier.
10. Grasmick, H.G.,Bursik, R.J.(1990).Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice: Extending the Deterrence Model.Law and Society Review,24(3),835-861.
11. Marx, G. T.(2005).Seeing Hazily(But Not Darkly) Through the Lens: Some Recent Empirical Studies of Surveillance Technologies.Law & Social Inquiry,30,339-399.
12. Mears, D.P.,Watson, J.(2006).Toward a Fair and Balanced Assessment of Supermax Prisons.Justice Quarterly,23,232-270.
13. Moon, M.M.,Sundt, J.L.,Cullen, F.T.,Wright, J.P.(2000).Is Child Saving Dead? Public Support for Juvenile Rehabilitation.Crime & Delinquency,46,38-60.
14. Padgett, K.G.,Bales, W.D.,Blomberg, T.M.(2006).Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effictiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring.Criminology & Public Policy,5,61-92.
15. Rothman, D.J.(1971).The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic.MA:Little, Brown.
16. Rusche, A.M.,Kircheimer, O.(1939).Punishment and Social Structure.NY:Columbia University.
17. Scheff, T.J.(1988).Shame and Conformity: The Deference-emotion System.American Sociological Review,53,395-406.
18. Schuck, A.M.(2005).American Crime Prevention: Trends and New Frontiers.Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,47,447-462.
19. Short, J.F.(1986).Book Review: Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification.American Journal of Sociology,92,240-242.
20. Staples, W.G.(1997).The Culture of Surveillance: Discipline and Social Control in the United States.NY:St. Martin`s.
21. Tittle, C.(1969).Crime Rates and Legal Sanctions.Social Problems,16,409-423.
22. Tunnell, K.(2004).Pissing on Demand.NY:New York University Press.
23. Welsh, B.C.,Farrington, D.P.(2004).Veillance for Crime Prevention in Public Space: Results and Policy Choices in Britain and America.Criminology & Public Policy,3,397-426.
24. 有關社會控制定義與類別請上網
25. 周愫嫻(1997)。變遷中的犯罪問題與社會控制－台灣經驗。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
26. 法務部(2006)。犯罪狀況及其分析（2005年）。台北:法務部保護司。
27. 許春金(2007)。犯罪學。台北:三民書局。
28. 蔡德輝、楊士隆(2007)。犯罪學。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
29. 鄧煌發(1995)。犯罪預防。桃園:中央警察大學。
30. 鄧煌發、許春金主編(2001)。刑事司法概論。

1. 江守寰(2015)。「情資整合平臺」在犯罪預防之運用─以臺中市「電子城牆」為例。犯罪學期刊，18(1)，61-88。
2. 江守寰(2016)。以大數據探勘技術分析「視覺化管理」在監視錄影系統之運用─臺中市政府警察局為例。犯罪學期刊，18(2)，1-30。