監護處分新制之檢證與展望 從關懷倫理、同理與脆弱性概念構思社會復歸觀點下的監護處分

Abstract

本研究分為檢證與展望二個部分。上半部的檢證，論證目標環繞在學理對刑罰與保安處分的洞悉：二者有著雙軌制的外觀，一元化的內在。本文針對刑法第 87 條監護處分2022年2月18日改為絕對不定期的修法，前後共計四年期間，釐清我國地方法院裁定監護處分的比例原則審酌傾向。研究問題係針對四項主要審酌因子：原犯行輕重、診斷之疾病或障礙類型、家庭支持度，以及責任能力鑑定報告的附帶建議，四者對監護處分期間的預測力，進行統計分析。

結果顯示，原犯行輕重於四年期間皆具統計上的顯著性，組內以「重罪組」最具預測力，可初步證立監護處分與刑罰之間的近似性。家庭支持度的影響力次之，組內以「無家組」具顯著的解釋力。後者反映我國地方法院對監護處分期間的裁量，有將危險性的認定納入被告「非個人」因素之傾向，其中隱含對無家者的風險考量，並有以住院監護作為替代安置之傾向。

下半部的展望，是本研究走向規範論證的起點。本文從障礙親職的經驗敘事出發，與關懷倫理學形成交會，並參採前人觀點，以同理能力作為關懷倫理學核心價值的修正。藉由同理看見精神障礙觸法者的脆弱性與需保護性，並從能力理論鏡映出精神障礙家庭走向雙向復元的契機。在脆弱性、需保護性及關懷作為回應的歷程中，形塑促進關係自主的處遇目標，並藉由 Meyers 的自主能力理論，確立以行為人為本位的處遇理念。

實踐層次上，本文觀察風險—需求—回應模式 (RNR Model) 與良善生活模式 (GLM) 論者之間的對話，並以「回復行為人自主能力的基本需求」修正處遇架構。最後，本研究立於監護處分廢止論的彼岸，重構現行監護處分的處遇內涵，分別就監護處分之要否、期間及延長，提出對現行法的修正建議、限縮解釋適用對象，以及如何在現行法的縫隙中，注入回復行為人自主能力的處遇方向。

This study integrates an empirical validation of theoretical claims with a normative-theoretical inquiry. The first part examines the theoretical claim that, despite the formal dual-track structure of criminal punishment and criminal custody, they share a functionally unitary internal logic. Focusing on the 18 February 2022 amendment to Article 87 of the Criminal Code, which rendered criminal custody absolutely indeterminate in duration, this study examines district court decisions during the four years surrounding the amendment to identify tendencies in proportionality reasoning. This study statistically examines the predictive power of four factors for the duration of criminal custody: offense severity, diagnosed mental disorders or disabilities, family support, and the recommendations contained in criminal responsibility assessment reports.

The findings indicate that offense severity remains statistically significant throughout the four-year period, with the serious offense group showing the greatest predictive power, providing preliminary support for a structural proximity between criminal custody and criminal punishment. Family support shows the second-highest predictive power, with the no-family group demonstrating significant explanatory power. This reflects a tendency in the discretion exercised by Taiwan’s district courts over the duration of criminal custody to incorporate assessments of dangerousness based on non-personal factors, particularly homelessness, and to use inpatient custody as a substitute form of social placement.

The second part marks the starting point of the study’s normative argument. It begins with narrative accounts of parenting in families caring for members with disabilities and engages the ethics of care, drawing on prior scholarship that treats empathy as a core value within the ethics of care. Through empathy, the vulnerability and protection needs of offenders with mental disorders are recognized, while the capability approach reflects the possibility of bidirectional recovery within families affected by mental disorders. In responding to vulnerability and protection through care, the study formulates treatment goals aimed at promoting relational autonomy and drawing on Meyers’ theory of autonomy competence, establishes an offender-centered treatment orientation.

At the practical level, the study observes the dialogue between the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model and the Good Lives Model (GLM) and revises the intervention framework by centering on the basic needs required to restore the offender’s autonomy competence. Rather than adopting an abolitionist position, the study reconstructs the treatment content of existing criminal custody. It advances recommendations concerning the necessity, duration, and extension of criminal custody, proposes statutory reform, calls for restrictive interpretation of its scope, and identifies ways to introduce an autonomy-restorative orientation within the framework of the existing law.