犯罪遠離理論研究——以就業輔導政策為例

Abstract

本研究嘗試從犯罪遠離理論（the theory of desistance from crime）出發，作為理解、批判並回應現行就業輔導制度的理論基礎，重新審視臺灣更生保護政策的建制邏輯與實踐困境。遠離現象（desistance）早已為實證研究所確認，然而制度回應與理論基礎卻仍多停留在犯罪防治或再犯預防的傳統框架，忽略遠離歷程所隱含的認同重構、社會支持與制度承諾等深層條件。本文認為若制度本身未能提供穩定、具可及性與正當性的生活替代方案，則犯罪遠離現象的條件將會難以成形。 本文認為犯罪遠離理論是互相對話與演進的概念體系，從早期的「初級脫離」（primary desistance）到「次級脫離」（secondary desistance），進而發展出以「認同轉化」與「社會整合」為核心的整合理論架構，再到以行為脫離（act-desistance）、認同脫離（identity desistance）、關係脫離（relational desistance）三面向的描述，不僅揭示了犯罪遠離的多層次樣貌，也突顯了制度與社會環境在遠離發生過程中所扮演的關鍵角色。透過理論回顧與詮釋，強調犯罪遠離應被理解為一種歷程性、動態且具非線性特質的社會過程，並非單一行為的停止，而是個體在特定情境中與制度、社會網絡與自我期許間不斷互動的交織結果。尤其在高度污名與社會排斥的情境下，遠離更需制度積極介入，提供資源、認同與機會，方可能得以穩定。 「就業」在遠離歷程中係具有關鍵地位的事件，不僅因其可提供穩定收入與合法生活基礎，更重要的是，它象徵著個體被社會重新接納的可能性。穩定就業不僅能強化個體的社會角色與自我認同，也能透過持續性的社會互動，促進社會整合（social integration）過程，進而鞏固犯罪遠離傾向。然而，若制度未能保障此一條件，或未能提供對應支持，犯罪遠離歷程將難以持續，甚至可能在挫折中被中斷，陷入再犯循環。 本文分析臺灣現行的更生保護與就業輔導制度，指出其在施行上面臨複數困境：第一點是政策目標相對模糊，長期以來實以「再犯預防」為主軸，同時基於人力與預算的緊縮，使實務工作缺乏具體且明確指導原則；第二點是制度設計上多以媒合職缺與短期就業成果為主要指標，忽略個案的復歸能力與意願須要長期性支持與多面向介入之特性；第三點則是更生保護制度執行主要由半官方組織負責，而官方組織的定位與相關執行卻缺乏明確專業分工與跨部會整合，使個案在尋求協助時需面對高度官僚化組織與信任風險，降低其實際使用意願，特別是目前更生人並未被納入社會安全網的優先關懷對象，使得相關資源投入顯得邊緣而零碎，進一步稀釋了政策效果。 為與制度進行對話，本文引入犯罪遠離理論作為觀察基礎，用以檢視政策成效，更試圖從理論角度揭示制度盲點。本文比較美國經驗，包括「前科消除法案」（Ban-the-Box Laws）、「誠信保險制度」（Federal Bonding Program）與「工作釋放制度」等，指出其嘗試結合制度正當性與市場效率，雖仍受限於選擇性排除與勞動剝削等相關風險，但在實務執行、方案多元化與污名減緩等角度，確實仍然提供了具啟發性的反思視角。當然，本文並不主張任意的直接移植，而是希望在比較過程中嘗試凸顯臺灣制度如何建構「可遠離的個體」這一概念，並藉此反問：「我們希望個案成為怎樣的『遠離者』？制度是否創造了讓人遠離犯罪的條件與空間？」 本研究進一步提出數項制度修正建議。首先，本文認為須重構政策核心理念，從以「控制風險」為導向的再犯預防體系，轉向支持個體得以遠離犯罪的司法福祉框架；其次，需建立「遠離犯罪支持網絡」，整合法律、勞動、衛福、教育等部門資源，提供橫跨離開監禁系統初期至長期社會適應的連續性支持；同時應提升制度的個別化與去標籤化特性，設計具差異性、非強制性且以尊重個體主體性為前提的服務模式。最後，本文也認為必須建構動態的政策追蹤與回饋機制，不僅評估就業媒合數字，更須關注個體的復歸穩定程度與主觀認同轉變歷程，讓制度本身具有學習與修正能力。 總結而言，本文主張犯罪遠離是一種需由制度賦予條件與支持的社會建構歷程，若制度無法提供遠離現象所需的各式條件，甚至以嚴厲的刑罰進行犯罪對應，那麼犯罪遠離現象就會不容易發生，甚至可能淪為理論上的虛構。透過犯罪遠離理論的導入與實踐性對話，本文試圖重構一種更具回應性與承諾精神的制度想像，使更生保護更傾向於成為社會整合的核心理念。

This study adopts the perspective of desistance from crime as a conceptual and critical framework to examine and engage with Taiwan’s current employment assistance policies for individual post-incarceration. While desistance has become an increasingly recognized phenomenon in empirical criminology, institutional responses remain largely entrenched in paradigms of risk management and recidivism prevention. Such frameworks often neglect the social, structural, and symbolic conditions under which desistance becomes viable. This thesis argues that without stable, accessible, and legitimate alternatives—particularly in the domain of employment—desistance becomes a hollow ideal, and the language of “rehabilitation” risks devolving into rhetorical formality. Desistance is understood here not as a singular event, but as a dynamic, non-linear process involving rupture, social reconnection, and sustained support. Within this process, stable employment functions not only as an economic resource but as a form of symbolic capital—an indicator of social legitimacy, self-recognition, and institutional trust. However, this potential is undermined when employment systems remain exclusionary, stigmatizing, and disconnected from the realities of those navigating reentry. The study examines Taiwan’s post-release policy framework and identifies three structural deficits. First, the absence of a desistance-oriented vision has led to fragmented and short-term interventions focused on job matching rather than long-term development. Second, quasi-governmental agencies operate with limited professional coordination and rely heavily on stigmatized access mechanisms, which erode trust and reduce service uptake. Third, ex-offenders are not formally recognized as a priority group within Taiwan’s broader social welfare infrastructure, resulting in marginal resource allocation and limited systemic responsiveness. To critically address these shortcomings, this research mobilizes desistance theory not merely as a diagnostic lens but as a dialogical tool. By engaging with comparative policy practices—particularly those in the United States, such as ban-the-box legislation, fidelity bonding, and transitional work programs—the thesis highlights the importance of reducing institutional stigma and diversifying service pathways. These practices offer insights not for direct transplantation, but for rethinking how institutions can create the conditions under which desistance becomes structurally possible. This study ultimately calls for a shift from punitive containment to sustained support: the development of a cross-ministerial “desistance support network” that integrates justice, labor, welfare, and education sectors; the provision of individualized, non-coercive, and stigma-sensitive services; and the implementation of dynamic feedback mechanisms that track not only employment outcomes but subjective changes in identity and life orientation. Crucially, this thesis insists that reentry must be understood not as a test of moral redemption but as a process of reclaiming everyday life under fair and equitable conditions. In this light, desistance is not merely a matter of personal willpower or behavioral control. It is a question of whether the system is capable of supporting a life beyond punishment. This study offers a theoretical and policy-oriented response to that question.