請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/90873完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝煜偉 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yu-Wei Hsieh | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 杜敏瑜 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Min-Yu Du | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-10-23T16:07:26Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023-10-23 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2023-07-18 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
專書 Michel Foucault（著），林志明（譯）（2022），《古典時代瘋狂史》，台北：時報。 王俸鋼、周煌智（2014），〈就審能力、證人能力與受刑能力鑑定〉，《司法精神醫學手冊》，頁259-276，台北：台北精神醫學協會。 期刊論文 丁正杰（2010），〈我國精神衛生法強制社區治療制度之未來－－以比較法制之經驗切入〉，《軍法專刊》，56卷3期，頁207-226。 林慈偉(2020)，〈刑事訴訟法第294條第1項刑事被告就審能力規定之修正芻議〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，306期，頁175-202。 林慈偉(2019)，〈精神障礙被告之就審能力：從CRPD 與Noble v. Australia 案出發〉，《月旦醫事法報告》，34期，頁22-39。 林鈺雄(2018)，〈德國刑訴逐條釋義（上）－羈押及暫時逮捕（§§112 ff. StPO），《月旦刑事法評論》，8期，頁5-29。 李郁強（2015），〈從強制社區治療探討精神衛生法之修正——以病患自主權為中心〉，《法令月刊》，66卷4期，頁142-178。 李佳玟(2021)，〈刑事審判中的司法詢問員〉，《政大法學評論》，164期，頁51-126。 黃聿斐、吳佳慶(2022)，〈精神障礙及其他心智缺陷者的就審能力與司法精神鑑定（一）〉，《月旦醫事法報告》，67期，頁136-146。 黃聿斐、吳佳慶(2022)，〈精神障礙及其他心智缺陷者的就審能力與司法精神鑑定（二）〉，《月旦醫事法報告》，68期，頁118-130。 學位論文 李緻柔(2021)，《精神障礙被告就審能力問題之研究》，國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文。 黃祿芳(2010)，《刑事被告之訴訟能力》，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。 政府公報 立法院公報處(2020)，《立法院公報》，第109卷，第44期，頁111-113。 立法院議案關係文書(2020)，《立法院公報》，院總第246號委員提案第 24762號。 立法院議案關係文書(2020)，《立法院公報》，院總第246號委員提案第24883號。 立法院議案關係文書(2020)，《立法院公報》，院總第246號委員提案第25993號。 網路資料 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2017)，《身心障礙者權利公約（CRPD）初次國家報告國際審查委員會提出之問題清單及政府機關回應內容》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=73。 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2019)，《國際審查委員會(IRC) 2017年11月3日就中華民國(台灣)施行身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)初次國家報告結論性意見》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=261。 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2020)，《身心障礙者權利公約（CRPD）第二次國家報告》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=1452。 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2022)，《身心障礙者權利公約第二次國家報告國際審查結論性意見》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=1696。 國家人權委員會(2021)，《國家人權委員會就身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)第二次國家報告之獨立評估意見》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=1658。 衛生福利部網站(2017)，《強化兒童及心智障礙之性侵害被害人司法權益維護性侵害司法訪談制度自106年1月1日起施行》，載於：https://www.mohw.gov.tw/fp-2634-9704-1.html。 楊雲驊(2021)，《建「暫時安置」制度收容精障被告預防公共危害》，載於：https://forum.ettoday.net/news/2102016。 蔡長哲(2019)，《抗精神病藥物的善與惡──治療 vs. 副作用的天秤兩端》，載於：https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-mental-disorder-insight-1。 英文文獻 專書 Antony Duff, Lindsay Farmer, Sandra Marshall, Victor Tardros (2007). The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial. (Vols. 3). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Annabelle Frazier, Isabella Callahan (2021). Pre-trial Civil Commitment of Criminal Defendants. In Christine S. Scott-Hayward, Jennifer E. Copp, Stephen Demuth (Eds.), Handbook on Pretrial Justice. London, UK: Routledge. David Forshaw. The origins and early development of forensic mental health. In Keith Soothill, Paul Rogers& Mairead Dolan (Eds.) Handbook of Forensic Mental Health (pp64-84). London, UK: Routledge. Gary B. Melton, John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Christopher Slobogin (2007). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press. James Q. Whitman (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. New Haven: Yale University Press. John H. Langbein (2005). The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthew Hale (1847). The history of the pleas of the Crown. Philadelphia: R.H. Small. Michel Foucault (2014). Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice (Stephen W. Sawyer trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published: 1974) Michel Foucault (2003). Abnormal. (Graham Burchell, trans. Arnold I. Davidson, eds.). New York: Picador. (Original work published: 1975) Maya Sabatello (2013). A Short History of the International Disability Rights Movement, in Maya Sabatello, Marianne Schulze (Eds.) Human Rights and Disability Advocacy (pp13-24). Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Roesch Ronald Zapf, Patricia A. Golding, Stephen L. Skeem, Jennifer L (1999). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial, in Irving B. Weiner & Randy K. Otto (Eds.) The handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 327–349). New York: Wiley. Thomas Grisso, Randy Borum, John F. Edens, Jennifer Moye, Randy K. Otto (2003). Evaluating Competencies Forensic Assessments and Instruments. New York: Springer New York. 期刊論文 Amar Shah (2012). Making Fitness to Plead Fit for Purpose. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 1, 176-197. Anna Lawson (2007). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: New Era or False Dawn? Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 34, 563-620. Bruce J. Winick (1995). Reforming Incompetency to Stand Trial and Plead Guilty: A Restated Proposal and a Response to Professor Bonnie. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 571-624. B. J. Brown (1960). R. v. Podola: Hysterical amnesia and plea in bar of trial. University of Malaya Law Review, 2(1), 113-116. Christopher Slobogin (2015). Eliminating mental disability as a legal criterion in deprivation of liberty cases: The impact of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities on the insanity defense, civil commitment, and competency law. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 40, 36-42. Elizabeth S. Scott, Thomas Grisso (2005). Developmental Incompetence, Due Process, and Juvenile Justice Policy. The North Carolina Law Review, 83(4), 793-845. Eilionóir Flynn, Anna Arstein-Kerslake (2014). The Support Model of Legal Capacity: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy？Berkeley Journal of International Law, 32(1), 124-143. Emily Henderson (2015). A very valuable tool': Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss the intermediary system in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 19, 154-171. Faisal Mudathikundan, Oriana Chao, Andrew Forrester (2014). Mental health and fitness to plead proposals in England and Wales. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(2), 135-141. Grant A. Blake, James R.P.O gloff, Won SunChen (2019). Meta-analysis of second generation competency to stand trial assessment measures: Preliminary findings. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, 238-249. Gwen A Levitt, Illa Vora, Kelly Tyler, Liliane Arenzon, David Drachman, Gilbert Ramos (2010). Civil commitment outcomes of incompetent defendants. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38(3), 349-358. Gowensmith, W. N., Frost, L. E., Speelman, D. W., Therson, D. E. (2016). Lookin’ for beds in all the wrong places: Outpatient competency restoration as a promising approach to modern challenges. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(3), 293-305. George Szmukler, Rowena Daw, Felicity Callard (2014). Mental health law and the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(3), 245-252. J. M. Beattie (1991). Scales of Justice: Defense Counsel and the English Criminal Trial in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Law and History Review, 9, 221-267. John H. Langbein (1994). The Historical Origins of the Privilege against Self-Incrimination at Common Law. Michigan Law Review, 92, 1047-1085. Jan Christoph Suntrup (2017). Michel Foucault and the Competing Alethurgies of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37(2), 301-325. John Dawson (2015). A realistic approach to assessing mental health laws' compliance with the UNCRPD. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 40, 70-79. John R. Hayes (2004). Sell v. United States: Is Competency Enough to Forcibly Medicate a Criminal Defendant. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 94(3) ,657-686. Lipsitt Paul D, Lelos, David, McGarry A. Louis (1971). Competency for trial: A screening instrument. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 128(1), 105-109. Linda C. Fentiman (1986). Whose Right Is It Anyway? Rethinking Competency to Stand Trial in Light of the Synthetically Sane Insanity Defendant. University of Miami Law Review, 40(2), 1109-1169. Michel Foucault (1978). About the Concept of the ”Dangerous Individual” in 19th-Century Legal Psychiatry. Law and Psychiatric, 1, 1-18. Megan Testa, Sara G. West. (2010). Civil Commitment in the United States. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 7(10), 30-40. Martin Sullivan (1991). From personal tragedy to social oppression: the medical model and social theories of disability. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 16(3), 255-272. Melvyn Colin Freeman, Kavitha Kolappa, Jose Miguel Caldas de Almeida, Arthur Kleinman, Nino Makhashvili, Sifiso Phakathi, Benedetto Saraceno, Graham Thornicroft (2015). Reversing hard won victories in the name of human rights: a critique of the General Comment on Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(9), 844-850. Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Benjamin Locklair, Christy Giallella, H. Jean, Wright, Patricia A. Griffin, Alisha Desai (2019). Treatment for Restoration of Competence to Stand Trial: Critical Analysis and Policy Recommendations. Psychol, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25, 266-283. Nicole R Johnson, Philip J Candilis (2015). Outpatient competence restoration: A model and outcomes. World Journal of Psychiatry, 5(2), 228-233. Paul R Hyams (1981). Trial by Ordeal: The Key to Proof in Early Common Law. On the Laws and Customs of England, 1, 90-126. Penelope Brown(2019). Unfitness to plead in England and Wales: Historical development and contemporary dilemmas. Medicine, Science and the Law, 59(3), 187-196. Piers Gooding (2015). Navigating the ‘Flashing Amber Lights’ of the Right to Legal Capacity in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Responding to Major Concerns. Human Rights Law Review, 15(1), 45-71. Piers Gooding, Anna Arstein-Kerslake, Sarah mercer, Bernadette Mc Sherry (2017). Supporting accused persons with cognitive disabilities to participate in criminal proceedings in Australia: Avoiding the pitfalls of unfitness to stand trial laws. Disability, Rights and Law Reform in Australia, 35(2), 64-84. Peter Bartlett (2012). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Mental Health Law. Modern Law Review, 75(5), 752-778. Rachel Gimson (2020). The mutable defendant: from penitent to right-bearing and beyond. Legal Studies, 40, 113-130. Richard Moran (1985). The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield (1800), Law & Society Review, 19(3), 487-519. Richard J. Bonnie (1990). The Competence of Criminal Defendants with Mental Retardation to Participate in Their Own Defense. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 419-446. Richard Rogers, Jill Johansson-Love (2009). Evaluating competency to stand trial with evidence-based practice. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 450-460. Sara Longtain (2007). The Twilight of Competency and Mental Illness: A Conciliatory Conception of Competency and Insanity. Houston Law Review, 43, 1563-1596. Tony Ward (2012). Standing Mute. Law and Literature, 1(24), 3-20. Trisha Oslon (2000). Of Enchantment: The Passing of the Ordeals and the Rise of the Jury Trial. Syracuse Law Review, 109, 176-197. Theresia Degener (2016). Disability in a Human Rights Context. Laws, 5(3), 1-24. W T Carpenter Jr, J M Davis (2012). Another view of the history of antipsychotic drug discovery and development. Molecular Psychiatry, 17, 1168-1173. Winston W Shen (1999). A history of antipsychotic drug development. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 40(6), 407-414. 學位論文 Margaret Catharine Rowe(2017). "Lock 'Em Up And Throw Away The Key": The Involuntary Treatment and Commitment of Incompetent Criminal Defendants. (Unpublished bachelor thesis). The University of Arizona. Soila Flor Villarreal (2019). Competency Restoration: Is it Effective. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, Texas. 政府文書 Law Commission(2016). Unfitness to Plead: Report (Vols.1). London, UK: Law Commission. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014). General Comment No. 1 - Article 12: Equal recognition before the law. New York: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2011). Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 35 of the Convention: concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Spain. Geneva: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016). Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 7/2012. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018). General comment No.6- on equality and non-discrimination. Geneva: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ministry of Justice (2020). Registered Intermediary Procedural Guidance. London, UK: Ministry of Justice. Scottish Law Commission (2004). Report on Insanity and Diminished Responsibility. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Law Commission. Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility (2020). International principles and guidelines in access to justice for persons with disabilities. Geneva: Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities. 研究報告 Department of the Attorney General (2016). Review of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996: Final Report. Judicial College of Victoria (2016). Disability Access Bench Book. Joyce Plotnikoff, Richard Woolfson (2020). The 'Go-Between': evaluation of intermediary pathfinder projects. 演講 Gerard Quinn (2010, February 20). Personhood & Legal Capacity Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift of Article 12 CRPD. [Conference presentation]. 2019 HPOD Conference, Harvard Law School, Cambridge. http://www.fedvol.ie/_fileupload/Research/NDE%20Reading%20Lists/Harvard%20Legal%20Capacity%20gq%20draft%202%20Gerard%20Quinn%20Feb%202010.pdf 網路資料 Clifton Harmon (2016). Florida State Hospital CompKit. Retrieved from https://silo.tips/download/florida-state-hospital-compkit Cate Graziani, Michele R. Guzman, Michael Mahometa, Alan Shafer (August 2015). Evaluation Report: Texas Outpatient Competency Restoration Programs. The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health in collaboration with the Department of State Health Services.http://utw10282.utweb.utexas.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/EvaluationReport_091815.pdf The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17871024-15 Law Commission (2016, June 30). Unfitness to Plead. https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/ Mental Health America. Types of Mental Health Professionals. https://mhanational.org/types-mental-health-professionals Kelli Weldon (2021, July 02). HHSC Expands Outpatient Competency Restoration Services in Texas. Texas Health and Human Services Commission https://www.hhs.texas.gov/news/2021/07/hhsc-expands-outpatient-competency-restoration-services-texas. William Blackstone (1765). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Retrieved from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch2.asp | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/90873 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 現行的就審能力規範以被告的能力作為審判參與門檻，在此制度下被認定欠缺就審能力者，通常為具有精神疾病或其他障礙的族群，其在經認定無就審能力後，除了無法進行審判外，還可能會面臨各種以醫療或保護為名的拘束人身自由措施。
本文從西方刑事審判歷史觀察被告地位的演變，包含過往的審判系統是如何區分及對待無法參與審判的被告，以及背後潛藏的權力作用。並以英美兩國作為比較法，檢視當代就審能力規範的變化、現今的刑事司法系統如何處理欠缺就審能力的被告。 又由於聯合國於2008年施行的身心障礙者權利公約，其所主張的人權模式，對於身心障礙者相關的規範要求，與現行採取醫療模式的各國法制落差甚大，故本文將分析此兩者立法模式的脈絡、對於身心障礙者觀點的差異及正當性，來探討現行的就審能力規範能否及如何銜接公約要求。最後回歸我國現行規範，重行檢視就審能力的劃分標準、審判中對於身心障礙被告可提供的支持措施、以及欠缺就審能力者的相關處遇，提出修正建議。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The current legislation of competency to stand trial uses the defendant’s capacity as the threshold of trial participation. Under this system, those who are found to be incompetent are usually persons with mental disorders or other disabilities. In addition to being excluded from the trial, the incompetent defendants may also face various measures to restrict their liberty in the name of medical treatment or protection.
This thesis will observe the transformation of defendants’ status from the history of Western criminal trials, including how the past trial system distinguished and treated incompetent defendants, and the hidden power function behind it. The paper also uses norms in England and Wales and United States as comparative law, examines the change in current legislation of competency to stand trial and how the criminal justice system deals with incompetent defendants. Besides, according to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was implemented in 2008, the normative requirements of human right model is quite different from the contemporary legal systems that adopt the medical model. Therefore, this thesis will analyze the contexts of these two models, including the different views on persons with disabilities and the legitimacy, to explore whether and how the competency legislation can reconcile with the requirements of CRPD. At last, after examining the current competency legislation in Taiwan, discuss the classification standard of competency to stand trial, and the support measures that can be provided to defendants with disabilities, and the relevant treatments of incompetent defendants, the thesis will propose amendments to relevant statutes. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-10-23T16:07:25Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-10-23T16:07:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 研究範圍與研究方法 2 第一項 研究範圍 2 第二項 研究方法 2 第三項 名詞解釋 3 第三節 研究架構 4 第二章 刑事審判歷史與被告地位之流變 6 第一節 英格蘭及威爾斯刑事審判歷史 6 第一項 神裁審判 6 第二項 訊問式審判及陪審團審判 6 第三項 爭辯式審判 7 第四項 控訴式審判 8 第二節 刑事審判中被告地位之流變 9 第一項 從積極到沉默──被告地位之轉換 9 第二項 在審判之外──瘋癲的被告 11 第三項 對被告觀點的轉換 13 第三章 當代就審能力概念 23 第一節 英國法 23 第一項 就審能力規範 23 第二項 就審能力之認定程序 30 第三項 無就審能力之法律效果 30 第二節 美國法 31 第一項 就審能力規範 31 第二項 就審能力認定程序 39 第三項 無就審能力之法律效果 48 第三節 身心障礙者權利公約 64 第一項 身心障礙概念之演變 66 第二項 CRPD下之決策模式 70 第三項 CRPD對司法近用權之保障 74 第四節 我國法 83 第一項 就審能力規範 84 第二項 刑事訴訟法修正草案 90 第三項 無就審能力之相關處遇 92 第四項 我國法對CRPD之實踐 99 第五項 小結 102 第四章 重新建構就審能力規範 104 第一節 當代刑事審判對被告觀點的再次轉換？ 104 第一項 人權模式之困境 106 第二項 CRPD的折衷理解 111 第三項 人權模式與醫療模式之爭 115 第二節 就審能力認定程序 120 第三節 欠缺就審能力之相關處遇 134 第一項 以回復就審能力為目的之治療 135 第二項 無回復就審能力可能者 142 第五章 結論 145 第一節 本文回顧 145 第二節 研究限制與展望 148 參考文獻 151 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | 就審能⼒規範之探究 ——從醫療模式與⼈權模式觀點看刑事審判中被告之地位 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Competency to Stand Trial - The Status of Criminal Defendants from the Perspective of Medical Model and Human Right Model | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林超駿;吳建昌 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chao-Chun Lin;Chien-Chang Wu | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 就審能力,身心障礙者權利公約,身心障礙,醫療模式,人權模式, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | competency to stand trial,CRPD,persons with disabilities,medical model,human right model, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 161 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300317 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2023-07-18 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 法律學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-111-2.pdf | 2.67 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。