請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44664
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王兆鵬(Jaw-Perng Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Hui-I Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃慧儀 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T03:52:32Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-08-24 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-08-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-23 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文專書
1.王兆鵬,刑事訴訟講義,元照,2009年。 1.王兆鵬,美國刑事訴訟法,元照,2002年10月。 2.林子儀,言論自由與新聞自由,元照,1999年,初版第1刷。 3.勞倫斯.傅利曼,吳懿婷譯,二十世紀美國法律史,商周,2005年。 二、中文碩士論文 1.崔雲飛,無罪推定之具體實踐-以歐洲人權法院判例法為核心,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2006年7月。 三、中文期刊論文 1.王兆鵬(2009),釋字第六五三號之評釋-舊羈押法理之崩解,月旦法學雜誌,172期。 2.尤伯祥(2008),偵查中羈押制度與人權保障實務學術研討會,台灣法學雜誌,120期。 3.李茂生(2009),釋字六五四號羈押法檢討座談會主題演說,台灣法學雜誌,126期。 4.李建良(2009), 押牢裡的自由與尊嚴-受羈押被告之憲法權利與司法救濟,台灣法學雜誌,120期。 5.許福生(2003),犯罪者處遇理念變遷之探討,刑事法雜誌,第47卷第6期。 6.陳志龍(2009),人權保障與羈押法修正方向,台灣法學雜誌,124期。 7.陳運財(2009),反思落實人身自由保障的契機,台灣法學雜誌,124期。 8.程明修(2009),別說羈押法沒被「特別權力關係」的惡靈附身-司法院釋字第六五三號解釋簡評,台灣法學雜誌,124期。 四、政府出版品 1.監察院九十八年度專案調本研究報告-監獄、看守所收容人處遇、超收及教化問題之檢討。 五、英文專書 1. Clair A.Cripe & Michael G. Pearlman, Legal Aspects of Corrections Management (2nd ed. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005) 2. Craig Hemmens, Current Legal Issues in Criminal Justice (Roxbury Publishing Company, 2007) 3. Joshua Dressler & Alan C. Michaels, Understanding Criminal Procedure (4th ed, LexisNexis 2006) 4. Lynn S. Branham, The Law and Policy of Sentencing and Corrections (7th ed. Thomson/West, 2005) 5. Michael G. Collins, Section 1983 Litigation (2nd ed. Boston, Hones and Barlett Publishers, 2005) 6. Peter M Carlson & Judith Simon Garrett, Prison and Jail Administration Practice and Theory (2nd ed, Jones and Bartlett Publishers 20, 2007) 6.Sheldon Krantz, Corrections and Prisoners’ Rights (West Publishing Co. 1988) 五、英文期刊論文 1. Cathy Lynne Bosworth, Pretrial Detainment: The Fruitless Search for the Presumption of Innocence, 47 Ohio St. L. J. 277 (1986); 2. David C. Gorlin, Evaluating Punishement in Purgatory: The Need to Separate Pretrial Detainees’ Conditions-of-Confinement Claims from Inadequate Eighth Amendment Analysis, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 417 (2009) 3. Debra T. Landis, Conditions relating to placement of more than one prisoner per cell as violation of inmates' federal constitutional rights, 85 A.L.R. Fed. 308 (1987 ) 4. Mark D. Martin, Jail Standards and Inspection Programs-Resource and Implementation Guide, National Institution of Correction, U.S Department of Justice (April. 2007) 11, available at http://nicic.org/DOWNLOADS/PDF/Library/022180.pdf last visited on 2011/01/17 5. Marc J. Posner, The Estelle Medical Professional Judgment Standard: The Right of Those in State Custody to Receive High-Cost Medical Treatments, 18 AM. J.L. & MED. 347 (1992) 6. Margo Schlander, Inmate Litigation, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1555 (2003) 7. Michael Cameron Friedman, Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Provision of Prison Medical Care: Challenging the Deliberate Indifference Standard, 45 VAND. L. REV. 921 (1992). 8. Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Conditions of Confinement-The Duty to Grant the Greatest Possible Liberty for Pretrial Detainees, 43 No.2 Crim. Law Bulletin ART 3 (2007) 9. Steven Bennett, The Privacy & Procedural Due Process Rights of Hunger Striking Prisoners, 58 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1157 (1983 ) 10. Sylvia Pollock, The Conditions of Pretrial Confinement, 17 Houston L. rev. 873 (1980) 六、美國法院判決 (一)美國聯邦最高法院判決 1. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006) 2. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) 3. Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984) 4. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) 5. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825(1994) 6. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) 7. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) 8. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 478 9. Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) 10. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) 11. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) 12. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) 13. Sell v. U.S, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) 14. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401(1989) 15. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) 16. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) 17. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) 18. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (二)州最高法院判決 1. Zant v. Prevatte, 286 S.E.2d 715 (Ga. 1982) 2. Thor v. Superior Court, 855 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1993) 3. Singletary v. Costello, 665 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1996) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44664 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文焦點為刑事羈押被告於看守所內處遇,諸如居住環境、活動、通信、就醫等等在看守所中日常生活狀況;本論文欲從法制面討論羈押被告就在看守所中生活應享有如何之待遇?與監獄中受刑人不同之處為何?有哪些權利可主張?如何主張?
我國大法官會議於民國98年作出釋字第654號與釋字第653號解釋,促使法務部全面檢討修正現行羈押法。行政院院院會於民國99年7月8日通過法務部所提的羈押法修正草案於立法院審議。羈押法修正草案雖試圖彰顯羈押被告的人權保障,但規定大多仍然標準模糊,將來若有羈押處遇的訴訟,法院如何權衡羈押被告權利與為達羈押目的與維持秩序必要之政府利益,將決定對於羈押被告權利的範圍。 美國法就羈押處遇已發展許多判斷標準與因素,聯邦最高法院於1979年Bell v. Wolfish案,宣示羈押被告受「正當法律程序條款」(Due Process Clause)保障,「羈押處遇不得構成處罰」成為羈押處遇的依循標準,其違憲標準為低度的合理關連性要求,只要看守所的管理措施與政府正當目的有合理關連,即不違憲。而美國聯邦最高法院已表示羈押被告「至少」享有與受刑人同樣的權利,但是由於羈押處遇案件採用的是合理關連性的低度審查標準,因此羈押處遇很容易與受刑人處遇的標準重合。本論文詳述分析美國法上各項監所處遇的判斷標準與內涵,逐次討論關於居住環境、食物、活動、醫療、通信、閱讀資料、接見權、舍房搜索和脫光檢查身體等等的相關案例。最後提出修法建議,期能供日後羈押法實務參考,更趨完整保障羈押被告人權,減低無標準依據的不確定性。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis focuses on the rights of pretrial detainees and discusses how pretrial detainees should be treated, whether jail conditions differ from prison conditions, by what and how can prisoners claim their constitutional rights.
Taiwan’s Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.653 and No. 654 prompted Detention Act Proposal. However, most of the context of this new act is vague such as “necessary to assure the purpose of detention and the security of jail.” Whether detainees can assert their rights will largely depend on how the court interpreted the concept in each case. As to the conditions of confinement, American Supreme Court held in Bell v. Wolfish that in evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention, the proper inquiry is whether those conditions or restrictions amount to punishment of the detainee. Supreme Court applied the reasonable relationship test, which only demands a rational relation to a legitimate goal. The Eighth Amendment entailed in the Due Process Clause mark the lowed level of confinement conditions. This article then addresses the standards and factors courts apply in different case, including overcrowding, double-ceiling, food, exercise, medical care, mail censorship, visits, cell shake-down search, and strip search case. To summarize, this thesis proposed pretrial detainees should not be treated as convicted prisoners, and the test should stricter than the reasonable relation test. Taiwan Law can learn from the theoretical analysis and empirical source of American case law to detail and interpret the standards for determining the rights or detainees. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T03:52:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R95A21073-1.pdf: 1732970 bytes, checksum: 9da948c2b01416d42fdeffe57830c8d9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機及目的 1 第二節 本文架構 2 第三節 用語說明 3 第四節 美國羈押與看守所概況 4 第五節 美國羈押被告主張憲法權利的救濟程序 5 第二章 美國法上被拘禁人處遇的一般原則 17 第一節 羈押處遇的一般原則 19 第二節 受刑人處遇的一般原則 33 第三節 小結 43 第三章 美國法上各項處遇的法律標準 45 第一節 生活條件 45 第二節 醫療照護 69 第三節 與外界溝通聯絡 94 第四節 搜房與搜身 120 第五節 小結 131 第四章 我國羈押法比較評析 139 第一節 我國羈押法制 139 第二節 羈押法修正草案內容評析 144 第三節 小結 159 第五章 結論 160 參考文獻 174 附錄: 178 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 羈押處遇之憲法權利-以美國法為借鏡 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Constitutional Rights of Detainees-Lessons from American Law | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王皇玉(Huang-Yu Wang),李榮耕(Rong-geng Li) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 監所人權,處遇,生活條件,醫療照護,通信,絕食,搜索舍房,脫光檢查身體,羈押法修正草案, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | conditions of confinement,pretrial detention,medical care,refuse to medical care,mail censorship,shake-down search,strip search,Detention Act Proposal, | en |
dc.relation.page | 187 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-23 | |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.69 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。