控制性侵害

Abstract

2001年，連續性侵害犯楊姓受刑人考上台大社會系社會工作組，引發了「強制治療是否有效」、「再犯危險該如何評估」等爭議，顯示了「性侵害」這個問題在2001年的台灣社會，已經被認為是一個必須透過法律手段，從不同專業加以控制的問題。本研究認為，要理解連續性侵害犯的假釋案何以在這樣的時間點成為輿論的焦點，必須進一步探究其深層的歷史與社會因素。據此，本研究提出了三個傅柯式的提問：一、為什麼台灣社會在這個特定的時間點，開始意識到需要積極的「控制」性侵害犯罪？這樣的論述是如何被生產出來的？二、在這個過程中，哪些團體參與了論述競爭、進而取得了論述的主導權？為什麼這些論述能夠取得主導權？這些論述又分別代表了哪些知識體系的觀點？而這些針對性侵害案件的修法過程，又逐步讓哪些專業論述在這個過程中取得了進入司法程序的合法性？三、不同行動者的認知、詮釋的差異，以及不同行動者在控制結構中的位置，將使行動者如何進行「控制」的實作？不同行動者之間是否互相衝突？「控制」的效果究竟如何？ 針對第一個問題，本研究發現，性侵害的相關立法與台灣婦女運動的歷史脈絡有密不可分的關係，特定婦女團體透過論述的生產重新建構性侵害的概念內涵，並且「再發現」了性侵害的嚴重性及立法予以控制的急迫性，並結合了重大社會案件的歷史偶然，才促成了多項法案的制定及修正。針對第二個問題，本研究勾勒出在「保護被害人」、「追訴加害人」、「治療加害人」三條軸線上，不同專業群體如何各自建立起控制性侵害的正當性，而這些正當性又如何建立在偶然性與斷裂性之上。最後，在性侵害控制的實踐層次上，透過田野訪談的資料，本研究發現在性侵害控制的實作裡，不同專業體系之間出現權力的相互對抗、彼此抵銷的狀況，使「控制性侵害」出現了諸多非預期性後果──偏重的刑度使院檢體系對證據的要求趨嚴，追訴性侵害更為困難；為了保護被害人而推動的減少重複陳述方案不僅未能有效減少陳述次數，更削減了社工的職能；最後，性侵害加害人的極端醫療化，更使精神醫療在控制體系中的專業權力大幅擴張，相對地削弱了司法體系的權力。

In 2001, the recidivism of sex offender named Yang, passed the college boards and prepared to enter National Taiwan University and major in social work. However, his parole caused the controversies about “is the compulsory remedy in prison effective?”, “how do we evaluate the risk of recidivism?” These controversies reflected that in 2001, the whole society thought that “rape” must be control trough the system of law and various professions. In order to understand why this parole becomes the cure of controversy, we have to question historical and societal causes. Consequently, I allege three questions from the viewpoints of Foucault: 1.Why at this specific time we detected that we have to “control” rape zealously? How the discourse of control be produced? 2. In this process of discourse production, who participated in the battle of discourse and assumed the ascendance of discourse? Did these discourses respected specific system of knowledge? And, in the whole process of the revise of rape law, did the discourses of any professions acquire the legitimacy to enter jurisdiction? 3. How the various cognition, interpret and the various stance in the control mechanism affect the practice of actors? Do different actors conflict between each other? After all, how can we evaluate the effect of “control”? To answer the first question, we found that the revise of rape law enchased deeply with the history of women’s movement in Taiwan. Specific group produced discourses in order to restrict the concept of rape, and “re-discover” the seriousness of rape and the urgency to control it. This “re-discover” combined with some historical contingencies of measurable criminal cases, caused lots of draw up and revise about rape law. In accordance with the second question, we delineated that on three axis about “protect the victims”, “sue the rapist”, and “remedy the rapist”, how did various professional group established their legitimacy respectively. Moreover, how these legitimacies established mere on contingency. Finally, on the respect of practice, we found that in the practices of the control of rape, field interview told us the conflict and nullify effect between professional systems. And made “control of rape” brought about unanticipated consequences: heavy penalty demands more evidences, and made the sue of rapist more difficult; in order to protect the victim, “program of reduce reduplicate statement” not only almost in vain, but also reduced professional function of social worker; the extreme medicalization of rapist, made psychiatry holds more power in the system of control, and simultaneously reduce the power of jurisdiction in the end.