性罪犯強制治療法規範之探討

Discussion about Compulsory Therapies of Law Regulations on Sex Offenders

10.29607/ZHWHGX.200906.0003

方文宗(Wen-Tsung Fang)

性罪犯 ； 強制治療 ； 保安處分 ； 罪刑法定原則 ； Sex Offenders ； Compulsory Therapies ； Protection Treatment ； Nulla Poena Sine Lege

犯罪學期刊

12卷1期（2009 / 06 / 01）

83 - 106

繁體中文

性罪犯經鑑定評估認爲有再犯危險者，必須接受強制治療，爲立意甚佳的刑事政策，惟性罪犯執行期滿、假釋前，或依法接受身心治療或輔導教育後，經鑑定、評估認爲有再犯危險所作的強制治療，屬於不確定之法律概念，作爲拘束人身自由的依據，有違憲法保障人民基本權。且強制治療應限於法定刑之範圍內，若刑後尚應執行人身自由受拘束之治療，顯然違反罪刑法定原則。再者，強制治療由監所或性侵害防治中心報請檢察官向法院聲請，法院未經公開審理及言詞辯論所爲之裁定，與正當法律程序不合，應比照判決程序方屬恰當。刑罰並非處理社會問題的萬靈丹，刑事政策無法解決全部的社會問題，且刑罰應具謙抑性不宜無限上綱，性罪犯刑期已執畢，縱使經評估認爲具再犯之危險，亦宜由社會福利部門給予適當之處置，以解決其個人及社會的問題，避免刑罰背負違反基本權的困擾。

Sex offenders, who are evaluated as persons to recommit with risk after authentication, should accept compulsory therapies. It's quite a good criminal strategy but before expiration of the prison term or parole, or after accepting physical and psychological cure or counseling education, compulsory therapies taken after authentication and evaluation to have risk to recommit belong to a kind of indefinite concept of law, which is unconstitutional for protection of civil fundamental rights, as foundation to limit individual freedom. Moreover, compulsory therapies should be limited the scope of the legal punishment. If after punishment, the freedom of a person still needs to be bound by therapies, it's obvious to offend against the principle of nulla poena sine lege (Latin, the former without latter is no crime). Furthermore, compulsory therapies are proposed by the jail or the Sex Assault Prevention Center to the prosecutor to be reviewed by the court, which decides the case without the public trial and oral debate. It's against the due process of law and it is proper to be decided by the strict procedure equivalent to the verdict Punishment should not be the limitless effective drug. The criminal policy can't solve all the problems of the society, as well as the self-restraint character of criminal punishment instead of boundless use. Though a sex offender, after the end of the criminal punishment, even is evaluated as with recommitment risk, the suitable treating ways should be taken by the social welfare units, for the purpose to solve the problems of the individual and the society, avoiding dispute over an affront to the fundamental rights by punishment.

1. 方文宗。強制抽血取證正當性之研究。律師雜誌，286，136-149。
2. 方文宗(2008)。交通法律問題評析。方文宗。
3. 李惠宗(2006)。憲法要義。台北:元照出版公司。
4. 林山田(2005)。刑罰學。台北:臺灣商務印書館。
5. 林山田(2002)。刑法通論。林山田。
6. 大法官會議釋字第384號，大法官林永謀協同意見書
7. 林明傑。台灣台中監獄辦理妨害性自主等罪收容人強制治療實施計畫。
8. 大法官會議釋字第491號解釋
9. 大法官會議釋字第522號解釋
10. 林明傑(2007)。性罪犯之再犯危險評估應用於刑後強制治療制度。96年度家庭暴力與性侵害學術研討會
11. 林鈺雄(2006)。新刑法總則。林鈺雄。
12. 柯耀程(2007)。刑法概論。柯耀程。
13. 柯耀程(2005)。刑法總論釋義。柯耀程。
14. 柯耀程(2005)。刑法總則修正之介紹與評析。台北:台灣刑事法學會。
15. 高金桂(2003)。利益衡量與刑法之犯罪判斷。高金桂。
16. 楊士隆(2006)。犯罪心理學。五南圖書出版公司。
17. 蔡德輝、楊士隆(2006)。犯罪學。五南圖書出版公司。

1. 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。
2. 昝大偉(2013)。台灣新制精神科評鑑合格以上醫院之區位分析－以性侵犯刑後強制治療為例。嶺東學報，34，89-123。