請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74659完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝煜偉(Yu-Wei Hsieh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chu-Han Ma | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 馬楚涵 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T09:05:42Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2021-04-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分 Beck, U.（著），汪浩（譯）（2004），《風險社會：通往另一個現代的路上》，巨流圖書。 Garland, D.（著），周盈成（譯）（2006），《控制的文化：當代社會的犯罪與社會秩序》，巨流圖書。 甘桂安， 陳筱萍， 周煌智， 劉素華，湯淑慧（2006）。〈性侵害加害人情緒管理團體治療的療效評估〉，《亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊》，2卷1期，頁1-26。 李茂生（1992）。〈受刑人之人權及其救濟制度-以美日兩國之制度發展為中心〉，《刑事法雜誌》，36卷1期，頁12-42。 李茂生（2003）。〈論刑法部分條文修正草案中保安處分相關規定〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，93期，頁101-113。 李茂生（2009）。〈風險社會與規範論的世界〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，173期，頁145-153。 沈勝昂， 葉怡伶，劉寬宏（2014）。〈臺灣性侵害犯罪加害人社區處遇之現況與檢討〉，《長庚人文社會學報》，7卷1期，頁135-165。 林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞（編）（2003）。《憲法：權力分立》。台北：學林。 林明傑，方韻，王怡婷（2015）。〈軍監性侵害加害者對處遇課程各項目之重要性評比研究〉，《犯罪學期刊》，18卷1期，頁89-114。 林婉婷（2009）。〈性侵害犯處遇之現況與未來發展〉，《家庭暴力與性侵害防治實務工作研討會》，頁452-470。 邱惟真（2017）。〈台灣性侵害加害人處遇成效初探〉，《亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊》，13卷1期，頁113-133。 侯淯荏，許華孚（2009）。〈監獄矯治教化人員之規訓權力運作與慣習實踐〉，《犯罪與刑事司法研究》，13期，頁83-143。 高鳳仙（2019）。〈從全球到臺灣性別暴力防治的成功策略與前瞻〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，287期，頁166-191。 高鳳仙，趙昌平，陳健民，沈美真（2013）。〈專業法庭(院)執行成效之探討:專案調查研究報告〉。 張文隆（2008）。《當責 Accountability ; ask the accountability advantages! 》，再版，台北：中國生產力。 許華孚（2005）。〈監獄與社會排除：一個批判性的分析〉，《犯罪與刑事司法研究》，5期，頁191-235。 許福生（2010）。〈論風險社會與犯罪治理〉，《刑事法雜誌》，54卷4期，頁61-91。 許福生（2014）。〈我國性侵害犯刑後強制治療之檢討〉，《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集 》，10卷17期，頁215-256。 陳慈幸（著）（2013）。《我國性侵犯矯正處遇政策之研究》，行政院研究發展考核委員會。 黃鈞毅（2009）。《法律家長主義》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，台北。 楊士隆（著）（2004）。《性侵害犯罪再犯率及危險因子之研究》，內政部。 葉怡伶（2018）。〈我國性侵犯矯治成效評估之研究：再犯風險的病因學觀點〉，《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》，21期，頁287-322。 劉寬宏（2017）。〈從性侵害犯罪防治法社區處遇規定論觀護人執行成效〉，《法務通訊雜誌社》， 蔡宗珍（編）（2004）。《憲法與國家（一）》。台北：元照。 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》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所 蔡墩銘（著）（1988）。《矯治心理學》，台北市：正中。 鄭添成（2004）。〈性犯罪加害人之處遇國內外現行主要制度評述〉，《犯罪與刑事司法研究》，3卷2期，頁78-109。 鄭瑞隆（2002）。〈性侵害犯罪之處遇與再犯預測問題〉，《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》，5卷，頁147-161。 盧映潔（2005）。〈台灣性犯罪之分布狀況及再犯率研究〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，119期，頁39-54。 鍾志宏，吳慧菁（2009）。〈從犯罪共通性理論探討性犯罪再犯現象〉，《犯罪與刑事司法研究》，13期，頁145-170。 二、外文部分 (一)英文 Ancel, M. (1987). Social defense : the future of penal reform [translation by Thorsten Sellin ; edited and revised by Edward M. Wise] with a foreword by Norval Morris. Littleton, Colo: F.B. Rothman. Andrew, D. A. Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH, US: Anderson Publishing Co. Andrew, D. A., Bonta, J. Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for Effective Rehabilitation:Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19-52. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004 Andrew, D. A., Bonta, J. Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model:Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755. doi:10.1177/0093854811406356 Azoulay, N., Winder, B., Murphy, L., Fedoroff, J. P. (2019). Circles of support and accountability (CoSA): a review of the development of CoSA and its international implementation. International Review of Psychiatry, 31(2), 195-205. doi:10.1080/09540261.2018.1552406 Bonta, J. Andrews, D. A. (2016). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (6th ed.): Taylor Francis. Center for Sex Off ender Management. (2008). The Comprehensive Approach to Sex Offender Management. Centre for Innovative Justice. (2014). Innovative justice responses to sexual offending: pathways to better outcomes for victims, offenders and the community. Circles of support and accountability：A Guide to Training Potential Volunteer, Training Manual 2002. (2002). Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum: Historical Trends and Principles for Law and Practice. . Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/ebp-resource-center. (2019). Clarke, M., Brown, S. Völlm, B. (2017). Circles of Support and Accountability for Sex Offenders: A Systematic Review of Outcomes. Sexual Abuse, 29(5), 446-478. doi:10.1177/1079063215603691 Corabian, G. (2016). Working towards desistance: Canadian public's attitudes towards sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and policy. (Doctor of Philosophy ), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. COSA CANADA Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from http://cosacanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/CoSA-Canada-Annual-Report-2017.pdf. (2017). COSA CANADA Annual Report 2018. Retrieved from http://cosacanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CoSA-Canada-Annual-Report-2018.pdf. (2018). COSA, Canada. (2017). COSA NATIONAL CAPACITY PROJECT. Retrieved from http://cosacanada.com/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/cosa-national-capacity-project/ Cullen, F. T. Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects. In N. I. o. Justice (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (Vol. 3, pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond Nothing Works. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 299-376. doi:10.1086/670395 DeMatteo, D., Murphy, M., Galloway, M. Krauss, D. A. (2015). A National Survey of United States Sexually Violent Person Legislation: Policy, Procedures, and Practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 14(4), 245-266. doi:10.1080/14999013.2015.1110847 Dworkin, G. (2020). Paternalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.): Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/paternalism/. Elizabeth, M. E. (2014). Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: Successful Integration or Exclusion? Criminology Public Policy, 13(1), 169-177. Elliott, Ian A., Zajac G. Meyer, C. A. (2013). Evaluability Assessments of the Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) Model,Cross-Site Report. U.S. Department of Justice. Feinberg, J. (1971). Legal Paternalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1(1), 105-124. doi:10.1080/00455091.1971.10716012 Felthous, A. R. and Ko, J. (2018). Sexually Violent Predator Law in the United States. 28, 159-173. Finn, P. (1997). Sex Offender Community Notification. Goldkamp, J. S. (1999). The Origin of the Treatment Court in Miami. In W. C. Terry (Ed.), The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation (pp. 19-42): SAGE Publications. Gundlach, H. (2007). What is a psychological instrument? In C. Klohr and M. Ash (Eds.), Psychology's Territories: Historical and contemporary perspectives from different disciplines. (pp. 195-224). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Hannem, S. Petrunik, M. (2007). Circles of Support and Accountability: A Community Justice Initiative for the Reintegration of High Risk Sex Offenders. Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 153-171. doi:10.1080/10282580701372046 Herman, K. (2007). Sex Offense Courts: the next step in community management? Center for Court Innovation: Center for Court Innovation. Höing, M., Bogaerts, S. Vogelvang, B. (2013). Circles of Support and Accountability: How and Why They Work for Sex Offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(4), 267-295. doi:10.1080/15228932.2013.808526 Jones, A. C. T. Neal, T. M. S. (2018). A Call for Research on Sex Offender Treatment Programs. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 63(1), 77-85. doi:10.1177/0306624X18786608 L. Ellerby, R. McGrath, G. Cumming, B. Burchard and S. Zeoli. (2010). Current Practices in Canadian Sexual Abuser Treatment Programs: The Safer Society 2009 Survey. La Fond, J. Winick, B. (2003). Sex offender reentry courts - A cost effective proposal for managing sex offender risk in the community. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 300-359. Levenson, J. S., University, L. Hern, A. L. (2007). Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59-73. doi:10.3818/jrp.9.1.2007.59 Levenson, J., Zgoba, K. Tewksbury, R. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation, 71, 2-9. Lussier, P., Gress, C., Deslauriers-Varin, N., Amirault, J. (2014). Community Risk Management of High-Risk Sex Offenders in Canada: Findings From a Quasi-Experimental Study. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 287-314. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.649694 Mack, J. W. (1909). The Juvenile Court. Harvard Law Review, 23(2), 104-122. Martinson, R. (1974). What Works?-Questions and Answers About Prison Reform. Public Interest, 35(2), 22-54. Maruna, S. LeBel, T. P. (2010). The Desistance Paradigm in Correctional Practice: From Programmes to Lives. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 65-89). Matson, S. Lieb, R. (1996). Sex Offender Registration: A Review of State Laws. Olympia, Washington Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/regsrtn.pdf. McGrath, R., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli,S. Ellerby, L. (2010). Current Practices and Emerging Trends in Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, Vermont: Safer Society Press. McNeill, F. (2009). What Works and What's Just? European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 21-40. doi:10.1177/206622030900100103 Mill, J. S. (2003). On Liberty (D. Bromwich, W. N. C. P. P. E. G. Kateb, G. Kateb and J. B. Elshtain Eds.): Yale University Press. Murphy, L., Fedoroff, P., Martineau, M. (2009). Canada's sex offender registries: Background, implementation, and social policy considerations. 18, 61-72. Olver, Mark E. Maaike, L. (2018). Canadian Content, Context, Current Practices, and Controversies in Sexual Violence Risk Assessment. Sexual Offender Treatment, 13(1/2). Petrunik, M. G. (2002). Managing Unacceptable Risk: Sex Offenders, Community Response, and Social Policy in the United States and Canada. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 46(4), 483-511. doi:10.1177/0306624x02464009 Petrunik, M., Murphy, L. Fedoroff, P. (2008). American and Canadian Approaches to Sex Offenders: A Study of the Politics of Dangerousness. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21, 111-123. doi:10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.111 Problem solving courts：an evidence review. Retrieved from https://justiceinnovation.org/publications/problem-solving-courts-evidence-review. (2016). Purvis, M., Ward, T. Willis, G. (2011). The Good Lives Model in Practice: Offence Pathways and Case Management. European Journal of Probation, 3(2), 4-28. doi:10.1177/206622031100300202 Ronen, Z. (2018). The Future of Correctional Rehabilitation: Moving Beyond the RNR Model and Good Lives Model Debate. 711 Third Avenue,New York: Routledge. Samuels, C. E. (2013). Program statement: Sex offender treatment. Schlank, A. (2018). Sex Offender Management Practices in the United States. Sexual Offender Treatment, 13(1/2). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum:Historical Trends and Principles for Law and Practice. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf. Terry, K. J. Ackerman, A. R. (2009). A Brief History of Major Sex Offender Laws. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), (pp. 50-68). New York: Springer Publishing Company. Terry, K. J. (2012). Sexual Offenses and Offenders: Theory, Practice, and Policy: Cengage Learning. Terry, K. J. (2015). Sex offender laws in the United States: smart policy or disproportionate sanctions? International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 39(2), 113-127. doi:10.1080/01924036.2014.973048 The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. (2017). ATSA:Professional Code of Ethics: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. The Correctional Service of Canada. (2014.04.24). National Sex Offender Programs. Retrieved from https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/correctional-process/002001-2008-eng.shtml Thomas, J. (2010). Adult criminal court statistics, 2008-2009. Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11293-eng.htm. Thomforde-Hauser, R., Grant, J. A. (2010). Sex Offense Courts: Supporting Victim and Community Safety Through Collaboration. Tregilgas, K. (2010). Sex offender treatment in the united states: The current : climate and an unexpected opportunity for change. Tulane Law Review, 84(3), 729-758. Trevethan, S., Crutcher, N. Moore, J.-P. (2002). A Profile of Federal Offenders Designated as Dangerous Offenders or Serving Long-Term Supervision Orders. Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved from https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/r125-eng.shtml#Toc8026198. Tyler, T. R. (2007). Procedural Justice and the al Justice and the Courts Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 44(1/2), 26-31. Ward, T. Brown, M. (2004). The Good Lives Model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology Crime and Law 10(3), 243-257. Ward, T. Marshall, B. (2007). Narrative identity and offender rehabilitation. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 51(3), 279-97. doi:10.1177/0306624x06291461 Ward, T. Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. New York, NY: Routledge. Ward, T. Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360. Ward, T., Yates, P. M., Willis, G. M. (2012). The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need Responsivity Model:A Critical Response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 94-110. doi:10.1177/0093854811426085 Ware , J., Frost, A. Hoy, A. (2009). A Review of the Use of Therapeutic Communities With Sexual Offenders. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 54, 721-42. doi:10.1177/0306624X09343169 Welsh, W. N., and Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning: Planned Change (5th ed.): Routledge. West, M., Hromas, C. S. Wenger, P. (2000). Profiles of State Sex Offender Treatment Programs August 2000. Wexler, D. (2001). Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An Overview. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 17, 125-134. Willis, G., Prescott, D. Yates, P. M. (2013). The Good Lives Model (GLM) in Theory and Practice. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 3-9. Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F. McWhinnie, A. J. (2009). Circles of Support Accountability: a Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sex Abuse, 21(4), 412-30. doi:10.1177/1079063209347724 Wilson, R. J., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J. E.. Prinzo, M. Cortoni, F. (2007). Circles of Support and Accountability: Engaging Community Volunteers in the Management of High-Risk Sexual Offenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(1), 1-15. Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E.. Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of Support Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot Project in South-Central Ontario. Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E.. Prinzo, M. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the community-based management of high-risk sexual offenders: Part One--Effects on participants and stakeholders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 289-302. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00475.x Wines, E. C. (1870). Transactions of the National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline Cincinnati, Ohio: American Correctional Association. Winick, B. J. Wexler, D. B. (2015). Drug Treatment Court: Therapeutic Jurisprudence Applied. Touro Law Review, 18(3), 479-486. Winick, B. J. (2003). Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(3), 1055-1104. (二)日文 碓氷悟史（著）（2001）。《アカウンタビリティ入門 : 説明責任と説明能力》，東京都：中央経済社。 加藤久雄（著）（1984）。《犯罪者處遇の理論と實踐》，初版，東京都：慶應通信。 染田惠（著）（2006）。犯罪者の社会內処遇の探求 : 処遇の多様化と修復的司法》，東京都：成文堂。 中村悠人（2012）。〈刑罰の正当化根拠に関する一考察(4・完) : 日本とドイツにおける刑罰理論の展開〉，《立命館法学》，344卷2464 - 2511。 澤登俊雄（著）（1986）。《新社会防衛論の展開》，東京都：大成。 吉岡一男（著）（1984）。《刑事制度の基本理念を求めて－拙稿とその批判の検討－》，東京都：成文堂。 吉岡一男（著）（1996）。《刑事学》，東京：青林書院。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74659 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 對本文而言，一個理想的社會，便應該是一個具有包容性的社會，對於犯罪 者的處遇，除了確立再犯預防、社會防衛的功能以外，理應也兼顧犯罪者的社會 復歸任務。關於犯罪者處遇與其復歸社會的議題，其中可探討之處相當廣泛且龐 雜，而由於性犯罪者的處遇，存在著高度社會防衛需求的特性，因此本文的主要 目的便在於，即使在這樣的境地裡，思考是否仍有可能為性犯罪者的社會復歸， 尋求一絲不同的可能。本文先透過比較法了解美國與加拿大回應性犯罪時的處遇 方式與態度，以此作為探究我國性犯罪者處遇問題時的參考，接著，在理論層面 上，論證社會復歸在性犯罪處遇中的重要性，並藉由反思社會復歸中的家父長主 義，建構出社會復歸與犯罪者處遇的內涵與定位。最後，在梳理目前我國的性犯 罪處遇內容與面臨的相關困境後，則進一步探究性犯罪法庭與 COSA 作為社會復 歸實踐途徑的可能性，及其在我國是否有適用的空間，並以 COSA 為主題，簡單 的做政策設計上的評析與檢討，期能為我國處遇措施帶來一點新的啟發與靈感。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This article claims that an ideal society should be inclusive. In addition to establishing the functions of recidivism prevention and social defense, the treatment of offenders should also take into account the rehabilitation of offenders. The issue about the treatment of offenders and their rehabilitation are quite extensive and complex, and at the same time, since the treatment for sex offenders usually requires a high degree of social defense, the main purpose of this article is to try to think about whether it is still possible for sex offenders to rehabilitate to society and seek a different possibility even in such a situation. First of all, this article tries to understand the methods and attitudes of the United States and Canada in responding to sex offence. Then, this article demonstrates the importance of rehabilitation in the treatment of offenders, and constructs the meaning of rehabilitation through the reflection on the paternalism in rehabilitation. Last, after sorting out the current content and the dilemmas of the treatment for sex offenders in Taiwan, this article then explores the possibility of sex offence courts and COSA as a practical approach to rehabilitation, and try to figure out whether there is a room for application in Taiwan. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T09:05:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2104202123073500.pdf: 2503860 bytes, checksum: 32c62cf92c5b11453adb89b5ed0a729e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題意識 1 第二節 論述架構與章節概述 2 第三節 研究方法與限制 4 第二章 比較法上的性犯罪處遇措施：以美國、加拿大為中心 6 第一節 性犯罪處遇：一般性干預措施 6 第一項 美國聯邦與整體概覽 6 第二項 加拿大聯邦與整體概覽 20 第三項 小結：兩國制度比較 30 第二節 回應性犯罪者社會復歸之新興途徑 32 第一項 美國：「問題解決法庭(Problem Solving Courts)」 32 第二項 加拿大：「支持與當責小組(Circle of Support and Accountability)」 41 第三項 小結 46 第三章 犯罪者處遇措施與社會復歸定位的再建構 48 第一節 社會復歸內涵的建構 48 第一項 社會復歸相關詞彙之使用意義考究 48 第二項 社會復歸概念誕生的歷史脈絡：以 19 世紀到 20 世紀後期的美國為中心 50 第三項 RNR 模式與 GLM 之爭 56 第四項 小結：統整幾種不同的社會復歸價值觀 64 第二節 社會復歸與犯罪者處遇 66 第一項 社會復歸在犯罪者處遇中的必要性與正當性 67 第二項 從家父長主義角度剖析社會復歸價值觀 69 第三項 社會復歸與刑罰措施間之關係 77 第四項 結論：犯罪者處遇措施與社會復歸的定位 87 第四章 我國性犯罪處遇政策評析 90 第一節 系統分析 90 第一項 我國性犯罪處遇現況 91 第二項 我國性犯罪分析 99 第二節 問題分析 110 第一項 我國性犯罪處遇的問題與變革的需求 110 第二項 我國性犯罪處遇問題形成的脈絡與可能原因 121 第三節 變革選擇途徑分析 126 第一項 性犯罪法庭 126 第二項 COSA 133 第三項 小結 147 第四節 COSA 之可行性分析與我國適用的可能細節探討 149 第一項 資源評估 149 第二項 變革計畫執行開始後的評估作業 157 第三項 COSA 若適用我國的可能運行細節構想 163 第五章 結論 171 第一節 本文回顧與總結 171 第二節 研究限制與未來展望 177 參考文獻 179 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 論性犯罪者處遇與社會復歸問題 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | On Treatment and Rehabilitation for Sex Offenders | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 109-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 周愫嫻(Sue-Ching Jou),李茂生(Mau-Sheng Lee) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 社會包容,社會復歸,良善生活模式,性犯罪,犯罪者處遇,家父長主義,性犯罪法庭,「支持與當責小組」(Circle of Support and Accountability,COSA), | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Social Inclusion,Rehabilitation,Good Life Model,Sex Offence,Treatment of Offenders,Paternalism,Sex Offence Court,Circle of Support and Accountability(COSA), | en |
| dc.relation.page | 190 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202100847 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2021-04-23 | |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2104202123073500.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.45 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。