請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67556
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王皇玉(Huang-Yu Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Che-Han Hsu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 許哲涵 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T01:37:29Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2017-08-04 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-04 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-07-31 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文專書
David Garland(著), 周盈成(譯)(2006),《控制的文化-當代社會的 犯罪與社會秩序》,台北:巨流 Manfred Nowak(著), 孫世彥、畢小青(譯)(2008),《公民權利 與政治權利國際公約評注》,北京:三聯。 Lawrence M. Friedman(著),楊佳陵(譯)(2004),《美國法導論》,台北:商周。 王皇玉(2009),《刑罰與社會規訓》,台北:元照。 王泰升等(2009),《歷史印記:百件珍貴獄政檔案》,台北:法務部。 奈杰尔.S.罗德雷(著),毕小青,赵宝庆等(译)(2006),《非自由人的人身权利 : 囯际法中的囚犯待遇》,北京:三聯。 吳志光(200710),《行政法》,台北:新學林。 林子儀(2002),《言論自由與新聞自由》,台北:元照。 林子儀(2007),〈言論自由導論〉,《言論自由專題研究》上課教材。 林山田(1975),《刑罰學》,台北:台灣商務印書館。 林世宗(1996),《美國憲法言論自由之理論與闡釋》,台北:師大 書苑。 林茂榮、楊士隆、黃維賢(2011),《監獄行刑法》,台北:五南。 張甘妹(1989),《刑事政策》,頁211,台北:三民。 二、中文期刊 陳愛娥(2011),〈憲法與行政法的互動場域:第一講─從特別權力關係到特別身分關係〉,《月旦法學教室》,第103期。 程明修(2013),〈法治國中「特別權力關條理論」之殘存價值?〉,《中原財經法學》,第31期。 福田雅章(著),李茂生(譯)(1986),〈受刑人之法地位〉,《刑事法雜誌》,30卷6期。 廖福特(1999),〈歐洲人權公約〉,《新世紀智庫論壇》,第8期。 蔡墩銘(1980),〈人犯的監所化與再社會化之研究〉,《台大法學論叢》,10卷1期。 三、網路資料 廖福特,〈歐洲人權公約之監督機構〉,http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/rte/myform_detail2.asp?id=1515 (last visited Feb. 15, 2015). 廢除死刑聯盟,〈懷抱希望的權利? 評歐州人權法院Vinter and Others v. the UK判決〉,http://www.taedp.org.tw/story/2574 (last visited Aug. 15, 2015) 四、中文學位論文 呂雅婷(2007),《刑事被告受律師協助權-以歐洲人權法院裁判為 借鏡》,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 呂雅惠(2007),《企業內電子郵件監控與隱私權保護爭議之探討》, 國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 吳佳霖(2011),《粉碎特別權力關係的最後一道堡壘-論監獄行刑 事件的權利救濟途徑》,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 黃慧儀(2011),《羈押處遇之憲法權利-以美國法為借鏡》,國立台灣大學法律學系碩士論文。 陳君維(2012),《受刑人之人權保障-以家庭權利與接見權利為中心》,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 陳博文(2013),《噤聲的受刑人-以能力途徑論受刑人表意自由權的內涵與保障》,東吳大學人權學位學程碩士論文。 蕭聖霖(2014),《受刑人權利之探討-以居住環境權為中心》,國立台灣大學法律學系碩士論文。 盧映潔(1993),《受刑人與人權保障-以意見自由與知的自由為探討課題》,國立台灣大學法律學系碩士論文。 劉建志(2006),《刑事被告請求適時審判的權利-以歐洲人權法院判例法為中心》,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 蔡琇如(2011),《犯罪人復歸社會議題之考察─從我國現行處遇制度談起》,國立台灣大學法律學系碩士論文。 五、英文專書 Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Prisons and Prisoners Released in 1994 (2002). Council of Europe, Freedom of expression in Europe (2007). Dirk Van Zyl Smit and Sonja Snacken, Principles of European prison law and policy : penology and human rights (2009) J. L. Murdoch, The treatment of prisoners : European standards(2006). Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988). Lynn S. Branham, The Law and Policy of Sentencing and Corrections (2005). Michael B. Mushlin, Donald T. Kramer, & James J. Gobert, Rights of Prisoners, vol.1 (1993). Morris Ruth, Penal Abolition, the Practical Choice: A Practical Manual on Penal Abolition (1995). Philip Leach, Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights (2d ed. 2005). Stefan Trechsel, Human Rights In Criminal Proceedings(2005). S. Livingstone, T. Owen and A. MacDonald, Prison Law (2008). 六、英文期刊 Alexander P. Sario, Return to Sender : reconsidering Prisoner Correspndence under Article 8 in Dankevich v. Ukraine. 28 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 187 (2006). David M. Shapiro, To Seek A Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights at the Frontier, 114 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 124 (2016). Dirk van Zyl Smit, Regulation of Prison Conditions, Crime and Justice, 2010, 503 (2010). James E. Robertson, One of the Dirty Secrets of American Corrections:Retaliation, Surplus Power, and Whistle blowing inmates. U. Mich. JL Reform, 42 (2008). Jerome A Barron, Access to the press- A new First Amendment right, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641 (1967). Jim Murdoch, The impact of the Council of Europe's 'Torture Committee' and the evolution of standard-setting in relation to places of detention, European Human Rights Law Review, 2006(2), 160(2006). Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou & Filippo Fontanelli, Family visits and the right to hope: Vinter is coming. European Human Rights Law Review 163 (2015). Owen Rarric, Kirsch v. Wisconsin Department of Correction: Will the Supreme Court Say “Hands-off” again?, 35 AKRON L. REV. 305 (2002). Peter R. Shults, Calling the Supreme Court: Prisoners’ Constitutional Right to Telephone use, 92 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 369 (2012). Stephen E. Gottlieb, Compelling Governmental Interests and Constitutional Discourse, 55 Alb. L. Rev. 549 (1992). Steven Arrigg Koh , Geography And Justice: Why Prison Location Matters In U.S. And International Theories Of Criminal Punishment, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2013(11), 1267 (2013). Steve Foster, Automatic forfeiture of fundamental rights: prisoners, freedom of expression and the right to vote, Coventry Law Journal 2 (2006). Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors, Prisoners: restrictions on speaking Kurdish during telephone calls to family, European Human Rights Law Review, 2014, 426 (2014). Trevor N. Mcfadden, When to Turn to Turner? The Supreme Court’s Schizophrenic Prison Jurisprudence, 22 J.L. & Pol 135 (2006). 七、美國法院判決 Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006). Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S 520(1979). Block v. Rutherfold, 468 U.S 576 (1984). Bretches v. Kirkland, 335 Fed. Appx 675(2009). Espinoza v. Wilson, 814 F. 2d 1093 (1986). Gino v. Senkowki,54 F. 3d 1050 (1995). In re Collins, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 108 (2001). Kaufman v. Karlen, 270 Fed.Appx. 442 (2008). Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F. 3d 1054(1998) Mays v. Springborn, 575 F. 3d 643 (2009). McCabe v. Arave,827 F. 2d 634 (1986). Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S 126 (2003). Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S 817 (1974). Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382 (1996). Procunier v. Martinze, 416 U. S. 396 (1974). Singer V. Raemish, 593 F.3d 529 (2010). Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1988). Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778 (2011). 八、歐洲人權法院判決及歐洲人權委員會裁決 A.B. v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 29/1/2002, App. no. 37328/97. Aliev v. Ukraine, App.. Judgment of 4/29/2003, no. 41220/98. Bamber v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 11/09/1997, App. no. 33742/96. Boyle and Rice v United Kingdom, Judgment of 27/4/1988, App. no. 9659/82. Campbell v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 25/3/1992, App. no. 13590/88. Doerga v the Netherlands, Judgment of 27/4/2004, App. no. 50210/99. Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, Judgment of 29/5/2012, App. no. 37862/02 Golder v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 21/2/1975, App. no. 18. Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Judgment of 24/9/1992, App. no. 10533/83. Jankauskas v. Lithuania, Judgment of 06/07/2005, App. no. 59304/00. Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, Judgment of 25/2/1992, App. no. 227. Messina v. Italy (No. 2), Judgment of 28/9/2000, App. no. 25498/94. Nowicka v. Poland, Judgment of 03/03/2003, App. no. 30218/96. Nusret Kaya v Turkey, Judgment of 22/4/2014, App. no. 43750/06. Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 25/3/1983, App. no. 61. Trosin v. Ukraine, Judgment of 23/2/2012, App. no. 39758/05. Wakefield v United Kingdom, Judgment of 1/10/1990, App. no. 15817/89. Yankov v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 11/03/2004, App. no. 39084/97. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67556 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 表意自由為受刑人應享有的基本權利,即使監獄有安全秩序要求等特殊需要,仍不得恣意限制。受刑人身處於國家控制之環境,其言論更可以避免國家權力於監獄中受到濫用、重新型塑自身個人人格,以及協助促成受刑人回歸社會。因此,限制上更應謹慎。
對表意自由之限制,形式上必須是基於有效的法律。此外,人民在具體案件中,也需有合理指示告知適用於該案件的法律為何,而不能是過度抽象或教條式的文字。 實質上,本文認為限制的目的應只有:「防止失序、防制犯罪、保護公共道德、保護他人權利」這四種,不適宜以「教化有不利影響之虞」作為限制受刑人權利之目的。 接著,就手段與目的之關連,需區分言論是外流向內或對內流向外,而為不同規定,且監獄須證明限制僅止於達到目的的必要手段,且非過度反應。 最後,必須注意受刑人處於人身自由受到國家全面掌握的狀態,國家必須隨時依照當代社會之生活需求,積極的形成具體規範,協助受刑人維持最基本的與外界溝通。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The freedom of expression is the basic right of the inmates, and even if the prison has its special requirement for a safe order, it is still not permissible to impose restrictions on inmates. The inmates are in a nation-controlled environment, therefore, their remarks should avoid the abuse of nation power in prisons, and reform their own personal personality and help the inmates return to the society. Therefore, the restrictions should be more cautious.
Restrictions on this right must be based on effective law in form. In addition, people in this specific case also need to have reasonable instructions to inform the law applicable to the case, instead of over abstract or dogmatic text. This article considers that the purpose of the restriction should only be as follows: 'the prevention of disorder, the prevention of crime, the protection of public morals and the protection of the rights of others', and it is not suitable for the purpose of restricting the rights of the inmates by 'adversely affected by enlightenment'. Then, we need to separate the remarks are inward or outward through their means and purposes and set different provisions. And the prison has to prove that the restriction is only necessary to achieve the purpose of the means, and not overreaction. Finally, we must pay attention to the freedom of personality of the inmates are under the whole control by the nation. The country must follow the needs of contemporary society's life at any time, and actively formulate specific norms to help the inmates to maintain the basic communication with the outside world. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T01:37:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R99a21065-1.pdf: 1651306 bytes, checksum: 358582da356786813938311d3ce40b1e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
口試委員會審定書 I 誌謝 II 摘要 III Abstract IV 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題意識 1 第二節 研究方法 1 第三節 研究架構 2 第四節 基本概念 3 第二章 我國法上之受刑人表意自由 9 第一節 我國監所之發展歷史 9 第二節 我國受刑人之法律地位 10 第三節 我國受刑人與外界之表意自由 20 第四節 本章結論 28 第三章 美國法之受刑人表意自由 29 第一節 基本概念 29 第二節 美國現代受刑人權利保障之流變 33 第三節 受刑人表意自由之實務判決 37 第四節 受刑人表意自由之保障法制 57 第五節 本章結論 64 第四章 歐洲法之受刑人表意自由 69 第一節 基本概念 69 第二節 相關判決 77 第三節 歐洲法之後續發展暨本章結論 105 第五章 結論 107 第一節 歐洲與美國之經驗對我國之啟發 107 第二節 對未來之展望 116 參考文獻 119 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 受刑人表意自由之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Study on the Prisoners Freedom of Expression | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 謝煜偉,許恒達 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 受刑人,監獄,表意自由,言論自由,探視,通信, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | inmate,prison,freedom of expression,freedom of speech,visitation right,correspondence, | en |
dc.relation.page | 124 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201702228 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-07-31 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.61 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。