論刑事處遇之正當性基礎—以強制治療為例

Abstract

性侵害犯罪後的刑後強制治療制度，不但將要件限於經過評估後有再犯危險者，且亦為考量到行為人本身在內部或外部條件上的欠缺，本文認為，醫療本身要透過刑事處遇的方式強制為之，本身容易產生矛盾，因為醫療強調病患自主的權利，而刑事處遇則容易以違反受處遇者的意願為之。 本文認為，首先應該先將目光焦點收束在刑後強制治療之部分，並於刑法第91條之1以及性侵害犯罪防治法第37條中，逐條剖析其內涵，並分析其定性，同時也將併同司法院釋字第799號解釋觀察之，並認為保安處分在刑後強制治療之上，將造成自我矛盾的窘境，也忽略了治療的本質問題。 再者，本文認為保安處分本身存在許多問題，固然在治療效果上保安處分可能有其實證依據，但亦有可能產生藉由治療之名而產生無限期延長監禁之實的隱患。本文首先以美國SVP法案為借鏡，探討刑後強制治療可能產生的本質外的無限期延長監禁，並指出隔離排害才是我們要對待這些性犯罪者的最終目標；本文接續建構保護處分適用於成人的內涵，並以少年事件處理法為根本比附援引，認為成人也有破碎的時候，也有需保護性的時候，這時國家就可以在憲法的正當性上取得依據，而為基本權之干預，為刑事強制處遇。 最後是本文將找出刑事處遇的憲法上正當性基礎，並基於有限的篇幅，探討了法律家長主義在消極自由權的意義上應如何與強制處遇共存；同時也說明了共和國主義如何在積極自由的意義上與強制處遇共存。最終提出由法律家長主義為保護處分的支撐點基礎，而由共和國主義為外部節制原則的作法，以取得憲法上的正當性。本文雖然不贊同保安處分的制度設計，但在談及理念的同時，也必須兼顧實務見解的發展，而這正是本文試圖將其完善的部分。

This thesis examines Taiwan’s post-sentence compulsory treatment system for sexual offenders, which applies exclusively to individuals who, after professional evaluation, are considered to pose a continued risk of reoffending. Although the system seeks to protect society from potential harm, it simultaneously exposes an inherent contradiction between the principles of medical ethics and those of criminal justice. Medical treatment is founded upon patient autonomy and voluntary participation, while criminal sanctions are characterized by coercion and compulsion. When the state enforces medical treatment through penal mechanisms, it risks undermining both the legitimacy of medical intervention and the coherence of the criminal justice system. To explore this dilemma, the study closely analyzes Article 91-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 37 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, and Constitutional Interpretation No. 799. It argues that defining post-sentence compulsory treatment as a type of security measure distorts the therapeutic essence of treatment and results in conceptual inconsistency. Through comparative analysis with the U.S. Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statutes, the thesis further demonstrates how similar systems may conceal indefinite detention under the guise of medical necessity, thereby endangering both legal proportionality and the protection of human dignity. Building upon these critiques, the thesis reconstructs the theoretical basis for applying protective measures to adults by analogizing the Juvenile Justice Act. It contends that adults, like juveniles, may experience psychological or situational vulnerability that justifies limited state intervention under constitutional principles. Finally, it proposes a dual theoretical framework: legal paternalism as the internal normative foundation of protective measures, and republicanism as the external constitutional constraint that ensures respect for individual freedom. Together, these frameworks provide a more coherent justification for compulsory treatment within constitutional boundaries, balancing the tension between personal autonomy, social protection, and the state’s moral duty to care for those in need of protection.