監獄處遇制度的抑制性對受刑人暴力違規行為影響之研究：以累進處遇、縮刑及假釋制度為例

The Influence of Inhibitory Derived from Prison Treatment Systems on Inmates' Violent Misconduct

曾佳茂(Jia-Mao Ceng)

受刑人 ； 刑期 ； 監獄處遇制度 ； 暴力違規 ； Inmate ； Imprisonment ； violent misconduct ； prison treatment systems

犯罪學期刊

18卷2期（2016 / 01 / 01）

79 - 116

繁體中文

依據行刑累進處遇條例第19條，刑期之不同會導致受刑人在相關處遇與晉級分數上產生差異，因此本研究將探討不同刑期之受刑人在累進、縮刑與假釋制度的相關處遇與分數差異下，是否會產生制度抑制性的不同，而導致門毆違規發生的差異性。本研究於2014年9月與11月間，針對臺灣北區兩個不同的矯正機關，進行自願性質的問卷施測。共計發放500份問卷，回收352份，剔除答題不完整與空白的問卷後，最後以256份進行分析，回收率達70.4%。從樣本分布中發現，不同刑期組在違規類型上有差異性，刑期六年以上者較容易從事非暴力性的違規，而刑期六年以下者則是較易從事暴力性違規，且兩組在服刑晚期時皆有核心違規者的出現。而從logistic迴歸的分析結果中發現，刑期六年以下者累進處遇對其負面抑制性越低，越容易發生鬥毆違規，而刑期六年以上者則是累進處遇級別越高、累進處遇對其負面抑制性越高，則越有可能發生鬥毆違規。綜上可發現，常不同刑期者同時在過去半年內發生鬥毆違規時，則累進處遇對刑期六年以上者的負面抑制性高於刑期六年以下者，代表違規後六年以上者比六年以下者更懼怕累進處遇制度。

The study attempts to examine the different imprisonment caused the different treatment in prison. It also caused different influence of inhibitory derived from progressive treatment system, good time system, parole system on inmates' violent misconduct. On the process of sampling, the study sampling two different prisons in North Taiwan at September 2014 and November 2014. Moreover, it uses the voluntary survey methods. At the same time, the survey was sent 500 questionnaires and recovery 352 questionnaires. After selection of the questionnaires, the researchers decided to use the 256 questionnaires to analyze. It recovery rate was 70.4% From the perspective of violations properties that the inmates who imprisonment less than six years tend doing nonviolent misconduct, but the inmates who imprisonment exceed six years tend doing violent misconduct In addition, the results of logistic regression analysis found that the imprisonment less than six years of inmates who progressive treatment system in low negative inhibition is high risk of violent misconduct. On the other hand, this analysis also show that the imprisonment exceed six years of inmates who progressive treatment system in high level and progressive treatment system in high negative inhibition is high risk of violent misconduct. Therefore, the results displays that after two groups did violent misconduct, the imprisonment exceed six year of inmate is more afraid progressive treatment system than the other.

1. (2001)。戒護事故原因、預防與處理。桃園:矯正人員訓練所。
2. (1994)。犯罪矯治─問題與對策。臺北:五南圖書出版社。
3. Akman, D.(1996).Homicides and assaults in Canadian penitentiaries.Harvard Journal of Penology and Crime Prevention,12,102-112.
4. Bartrollas, C.,Conrad, J.P.(1992).Introduction to Correction.NY:Harper Collin.
5. Bukstel, L.H.,Kilmann, P.R.(1980).Psychological effects of imprisonment on confined individuals.Psychological Bulletin,88(2),469-493.
6. Buss, A.H.,Perry, M.(1992).The aggression questionnaire.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63(3),452-459.
7. Cunningham, M.D.,Sorensen, J.R.(2007).Capital offenders in Texas prisons.Law and human behavior,31(6),553-571.
8. Cunningham, M.D.,Sorensen, J.R.(2006).Nothing to lose? A comparative examination of prison misconduct rates among life-without-parole and other long-term high-security inmates.Criminal justice and behavior,33(6),683-705.
9. Cunningham, M.D.,Sorensen, J.R.(2006).Actuarial models for assessing prison violence risk revisions and extensions of the risk assessment scale for prison (RASP).Assessment,13(3),253-265.
10. Edens, J.F.,Buffington-Vollum, J.K.,Keilen, A.,Roskamp, P.,Anthony, C.(2005).Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials.Law and Human Behavior,29(1),55-86.
11. Flanagan, T.J.(1983).Correlates of institutional misconduct among state prisoners.Criminology,21,29-39.
12. Gaes, G.G.,Mallace, S.,Gilman, E.,Klein-Saffran, J.,Suppa, S.(2002).The influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct.The Prison Journal,82(3),359-385.
13. Gaes, G.G.,McGuire, W.J.(1985).Prison violence: The contribution of crowding versus other determinants of prison assault rates.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,22(1),41-65.
14. Haertzen, C.,Buxton, K.,Covi, L.,Richards, H.(1993).Seasonal changes in rule infractions among prisoners: a preliminary test of the temperature-aggression hypothesis.Psychol Reports,72(1),195-200.
15. Harer, M.D.,Steffensmeier, D.J.(1996).Race and prison violence.Criminology,34,323-355.
16. Jiang, S.,Fisher-Giolando, M.(2002).Inmate misconduct: A test of the deprivation, importation, and situational models.The Prison Journal,82,335-358.
17. Mackenzie,Goodstein(1985).Long-term incarceration impacts and characteristics of long-term offenders: an empirical analysis.Criminal Justice & Behavior,12,395-414.
18. Steinke, P.(1991).Using situational factors to predict types of prison violence.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,17(1-2),119-132.
19. Wheeler, S.(1961).Socialization in Correctional Communities.American Sociological Review,26(5),697-712.
20. 李軍豪(2013)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學。
21. 周愫嫻(1996)。少年輔育院學生社會化模式研究。犯罪學期刊，2，151-174。
22. 周愫嫻、李茂生、林育聖(2011)。身體背叛了心理？監獄擁擠、違規、欺凌與收容人身心處境。2011犯罪防治學術研討會─犯罪矯正與復歸論文集，臺灣桃園:
23. 林子靖(2011)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，國立臺北大學犯罪學研究所。
24. 林琪芳(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學。
25. 高千雲、任全鈞(2000)。生活壓力、社會支持、社會距離與監獄暴行關聯性之研究。中央警察大學學報，36，317-339。
26. 陳志忠(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園，中央警察大學犯罪防治學系。
27. 黃永順(2007)。博士論文(博士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學。
28. 黃敬謀(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，國立臺北大學犯罪學研究所。
29. 楊士隆(2001)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,行政院國家科學委員會。
30. 楊士隆、任全鈞(2002)。台灣地區監獄受刑人暴行之實證研究。中央警察大學學報，39
31. 詹益鵬(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學。
32. 鄧煌發、林健陽(1996)。監獄受刑人輕微暴行相關因素之研究。警學叢刊，27(2)，177-206。