請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92593
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 吳建昌 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Kevin Chien-Chang Wu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黎勝文 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Sheng-Wen Li | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-02T16:06:29Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-03 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2024-05-01 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2024-04-21 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文文獻
一、專書 王皇玉(2020),《刑法總則》。新學林,臺北市。 張麗卿(2011),《司法精神醫學-刑事法學與精神醫學之整合》。元照出版,臺北市。 張麗卿(2022),《司法精神醫學-刑事法學與精神醫學之整合》。元照出版,臺北市。 二、期刊論文 王俸鋼(2018),〈從司法精神醫學角度看責任能力鑑定〉,《檢察新論》,第23期,頁50-67。 王俸鋼(2022),〈臺灣現行監護處分實務與精神醫療倫理困境〉,《檢察新論》,第31期,頁37-49。 王德瀛(2017),〈精神衛生法強制住院侵害身心障礙者自由權-身心障礙者權利公約初次國家報告國際審查〉,《科技法律透析》,29卷12期,頁7-13。 戎瑾如、蕭淑貞、蘇淑芳(2014),〈台灣精神衛生護理的發展方向〉,《護理雜誌》,61卷第1期,頁5-10。 吳忻穎(2022),〈監護處分及其危險性預後 ─ 以德國法作為借鏡〉,《矯政期刊》,第11卷2期,65-122。 吳忻穎(2022),〈簡評我國刑法監護處分之修正—與德國2016年刑法修正案與鑑定程序之比較〉,《月旦醫事法報告》,第73期,頁150-173。 吳忻穎、林晉佑(2020)。〈責任能力調查與監護處分執行現況之探討〉,《矯政期刊》,第9卷1期,頁71-107。 吳建昌(2016),〈從精神衛生及社會經濟政策省思臺灣無差別殺/傷人事件之防治〉,《犯罪與刑事司法研究》,第26期,頁53-82。 吳建昌(2017),〈臺灣精神衛生法強制住院規定之修法方向:從聯合國身心障礙者權利公約之爭議談起〉,《月旦醫事法報告》,10期,頁158-184。 吳建昌(2018),〈身心障礙者權利公約裁定停止強制住院:被遺漏的自主、平等與比例原則論述〉,《月旦醫事法報告》,17期,頁83-97。 吳秋宏(2021),〈我國刑事監護程序關於精障者被告監護法制之變革〉,《法官協會雜誌》,第23卷,頁82-97。 吳景欽(2008),〈對精神障礙犯罪者的刑事處遇-以日本精神醫療觀察法為比較觀察〉,《國會》,第36卷第9期,頁40-56。 吳慧菁、何建忠(2023),〈臺灣心理衛生社工於社區心理衛生中心之布建〉,《醫療品質雜誌》,第17卷第1期,頁58-62。 李念祖(2020),〈從聯合國巴黎原則論我國設置監察院國家人權委員會之展望〉,《台灣人權學刊》,第五卷第三期,頁101-116。 李俊宏(2022),〈從攔截式的司法精神醫療處遇看精神鑑定與監護處分〉,《檢察新論》,第31期,49-69。 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》,第66卷4期,頁142-178。 李清泉(1999),〈論精神異常犯罪者之監護處分〉,《法務通訊》,1995期,第三版。 李莉娟(2023),〈論英國刑事監護執行制度與借鏡〉,《軍法專刊》,第69卷第4期,頁92-126。 李錫棟(2022),〈精神障礙犯罪者處遇模式之法制—兼論暫時性安置〉,《警大法學論集》,第43期,頁53-93。 李懷遠(1963),〈論保安處分執行監護禁戒極強制治療處所之設置問題〉,《法律評論》,第29卷8期,頁16-19。 林政佑(2021),〈韓國治療監護制度介紹〉,《刑事政策與犯罪防治研究》,第28期,頁1-42。 林政佑(2023),〈從身心障礙者權利公約檢視日本醫療觀察法強制住院處遇:兼評台灣監護處分新制〉,《高大法學論叢》,第18卷2期,頁239-320。 林映姿、李超偉、周芳怡(2022),〈我國監護處分制度之興革〉,《檢察新論》,第31期,頁2-16。 林慈偉(2019),〈精神障礙被告之就審能力:從CRPD與Nobel v. Australia案出發〉,《月旦醫事法報告》,第34期,頁22-39。 林詩韻、黃聿斐、沈伯洋(2020),〈受監護處分男性精神疾病犯罪者再犯分析〉,《刑事政策與犯罪防治研究》,第25期,頁183-243。 林鈺雄(2022)。〈評司法院釋字第812號解釋(強制工作)—比例原則、區隔原則、權利救濟及釋憲溯及效力〉,〈台灣法律人〉,第12期,頁1-20。 林綺雲(2009),〈心理師專業是醫療體系或教育體系的附庸?-談心理衛生專業發展的困境與出路〉,《諮商與輔導》,第288期,頁53-58。 林輝煌(2006),〈論刑法上「心神喪失」免責之抗辯(上)—美國法制之參酌〉,《台灣本土法學雜誌》,第84期,頁25-47。 邱忠義(2018),〈精神障礙抗辯(Defense of Insanity)在英國的運用〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第278期,頁281-288。 施逸翔(2021),〈被控制的、還是獨立的人權委員會?〉,《台灣人權學刊》,第六卷第二期,頁115-118。 洪士軒(2022),〈簡評台灣司法精神鑑定與監護處遇制度-以日本法為比較中心〉,《法官協會雜誌》,第23卷,頁112-126。 孫迺翊(2016)。〈無障礙/可及性、合理調整與平等不歧視原則: 從身心障礙者權利公約檢視我國憲法及身心障礙者權益保障法之平等原則內涵〉,《臺大法學論叢》,45卷特刊,頁1163-1228。 孫迺翊(2022),〈精神病或精神障礙者人身自由與正當法律程序之保障—簡評刑法監護處分之修正及精神衛生法修正草案〉,《台灣法律人》,第9期,35-56。 孫迺翊(2022),〈精神病或精神障礙者人身自由與正當法律程序之保障—簡評刑法監護處分之修正及精神衛生法修正草案〉,《台灣法律人》,第9期,35-56。 徐淑婷(2023),〈協助精神病人跨越社區生活障礙:康復導向個案管理〉,《醫療品質雜誌》,第17卷第1期,頁14-19。 馬躍中(2020),〈我國刑事監護制度的現狀與未來―德國法的觀點〉,《刑事政策與犯罪防治研究》,25期,頁49-83。 馬躍中(2023),〈建構社會安全網:以德國保安處分法制為中心〉,《犯罪學研究》,創刊號,頁137-183。 張明偉(2016),〈淺論司法行政之界線(二)〉,《法務通訊》,第2828 期,頁3-6。 張廣運、陳奕曄(2009),〈台灣臨床心理師的專業發展歷史與批判〉,《人間思潮》,第19期,頁101-118。 張麗卿(1984),〈論精神病犯之監護處分〉,《刑事法雜誌》,第28卷6期,頁46-62。 張麗卿(1993),〈精神疾病犯罪人之監護執行〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第23卷第1期,頁209-240。 張麗卿(1996),〈精神病犯與精神病患收容要件的比較研究〉,《東海法學研究》,10期,頁249-296。 張麗卿(2006),〈精神障礙者之犯罪〉,《台灣法律人雜誌》,86期,頁161-166。 張麗卿(2021),〈精神病犯的鑑定與監護處分—兼談殺警案與弒母案〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,309期,頁57-79。 張麗卿(2022),〈2022年精神障礙觸法者新制之法規範與實務〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第328期,頁87-100。 許恒達(2022)。〈強制工作與違憲審查—評司法院釋字第812號解釋〉《台灣法律人》,第12期,頁21-41。 許恒達(2023)。〈刑事制裁與明顯區隔的憲法誡命〉,《台灣法律人》,第27期,頁77-103。 許華孚、黃光甫(2021),〈初探英國司法對監護處分實務作為—精神疾病罪犯之處置策略〉,《刑事政策與犯罪防治研究》,第28期,頁43-93。 連孟琦(2023),〈從德國法角度評析我國二○二二年刑事訴訟暫行安置新法〉,《政大法學評論》,第173期,頁237-304。 郭宇恆、李俊宏、吳文正、歐陽文貞(2021),〈精神疾病犯罪者監護處分時間的決定因子〉,《中華心理衛生學刊》,第34卷第2期,頁157-179。 陳文瑩、邱智強、董秀珠、陳俊澤、陳坤波、楊添圍、郭千哲(2017),〈使用精神科居家醫療整合照護病人之臨床特徵〉,《北市醫學雜誌》,第14卷.第2期,頁19-32。 陳俊榕(2021),〈德國精神病學處分之沿革與限制〉,《臺灣海洋法學報》,第30期,頁59-91。 陳昭婧(2010),〈與社會資源整合的理想社區心理衛生中心之網絡運作〉,《輔導季刊》,46(4),頁61-68;林本堂、彭朱如(2010),〈社區心理健康中心創新營運模式之建構〉,《醫務管理期刊》,11(2),頁81-94。 陳若璋(2018),〈刑事司法心理衡鑑綜論〉,《檢察新論》,第23期,頁3-14。 曾雯琦、馮欣蓓、鄭云(2023),〈以就業支持促進精神病人的社會包容—精神衛生護理師挑戰和方向〉,《護理雜誌》,第70卷,第4期,頁22-28。 曾毓君(2016),〈我國精神衛生法之強制住院制度何去何從——兼論臺灣桃園地方法院106年衛字第4號民事裁定〉,《萬國法律》,216期,頁60-77。 黃秀惠(2021),〈我們與惡的距離—論思覺失調症之罪與罰〉,《治末指錄》,第9期,頁151-167。 黃嵩立、黃怡碧(2021),〈國家人權委員會的第一年:雙重身份的困境〉,《台灣人權學刊》,第六卷第二期,頁107-114。 楊廼軒(2022),〈論美國法精神障礙抗辯的新發展: 以Kahler v. Kansas 案為核心〉,《歐美研究》,第52卷第3期,頁505-566。 楊添圍(2018),〈精神障礙或心智缺陷犯罪者之處遇〉,《月旦醫事法報告》,第20期,頁32-43。 楊雲驊(2022),〈身心障礙被告與國際人權法—以就審能力與待死現象為中心〉,《檢察新論》,第31期,頁17-27。 楊聰財、李明濱、吳英璋、魯中興、陳韺、吳文正(2004),〈社區心理衛生中心的歷史沿革〉,《北市醫學雜誌》,第1卷第4期,頁393-411。 楊聰財、李明濱、吳英璋、魯中興、陳韺、吳文正(2005),〈臺灣地區社區心理衛生中心之運作型態〉,《北市醫學雜誌》,第2卷第4期,頁38-48。 廖福特(2015),〈從個人申訴案件看國家為何違反身心障礙者權利公約〉,《萬國法律》,第204期,頁3-12。 劉育偉(2023),〈監護處分與強制治療合併立法可能性評價-從保安處分目的性為中心〉,《法學叢刊》,68(2),頁69-86。 劉玟宜、謝汶玲(2023),〈社區精神衛生護理的實踐與挑戰〉,《護理雜誌》,第70卷4期,頁7-14。 潘怡宏(2021),〈刑法監護處分制度之修正芻議 ──取徑德國、奧地利與瑞士刑法〉,《刑事政策與犯罪防治研究》,28期,95-242。 蕭宏宜(2021),〈精神障礙者舆暫行安置-監護處分之法制變革〉,《法官協會雜誌》,第23卷,頁97-111。 賴擁連、駱姿螢(2021),〈美國精神疾病犯罪者司法處遇之介紹與借鏡 ──美國精神衛生法庭之探究〉,《刑事政策與犯罪防治研究》,第28期,243-290。 謝伶瑜、王靜枝(2007),〈美國與台灣精神科居家治療服務與團隊的角色功能比較〉,《精神衛生護理雜誌》,第2卷第2期,頁64-69。 謝煜偉(2022),〈2021年刑事立法與實務發展回顧:以治安與治療為名〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第51卷特刊,頁1223-1255。 簡慧娟、宋冀寧、李婉萍(2015),〈從聯合國身心障礙者權利發展脈絡看臺灣身心障礙權利的演變-兼論臺灣推動「身心障礙者權利公約」的歷程〉,《社區發展季刊》,第157期,頁151-167。 魏千峯(2020),〈淺談監察院國家人權委員會之組織與運作〉,《台灣人權學刊》,第五卷第三期,頁 117-130。 蘇碧玉、沙堅白、余秝萱、張慧敏、諶立中(2008),〈以醫院為基礎的社區精神照護〉,《源遠護理》,2(2),頁5-10。 三、專書篇章 王國羽(2019)。〈障礙模型發展與核心概念〉,收於:王國羽、林昭吟、張恒豪(等著),《障礙研究與社會政策》,頁53-84。巨流。 吳建昌(2017),〈刑事責任能力〉,收於:周煌智(等)(編),《司法精神醫學手冊》,頁221。台灣精神醫學會。 洪士軒(2020),〈精神障礙犯罪者相關法制之芻議-以臺灣監護處分與日本醫療觀察法之比較為中心〉,李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集編輯委員會(編),《主體、理性與人權的彼岸:李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集》,頁259-285,新學林出版。 翁燕菁、翁國彥(2017),〈人身自由與安全〉,收於:孫迺翊、廖福特(編),《身心障礙者權利公約》,240-247,台灣新世紀文教基金會。 張珏(2018),〈公共心理衛生〉,收於:王榮德(等著),《公共衛生學(中冊)》(修訂第五版),頁386。臺大出版中心。 陳俊翰(2017),〈自立生活與行動能力之保障〉,孫迺翊(等著),《身心障礙者權利公約》,頁281-320,台灣新世紀文教基金會。 陳俊翰、黃詩淳(2017),〈法律能力平等認可〉,收於孫迺翊、廖福特(編)《身心障礙者權利公約》,頁200-201。台灣新世紀文教基金會。 楊士隆、李宗憲(2013)。〈藥物濫用之處遇制度-美國毒品法庭〉,收於:楊士隆(等著),《藥物濫用、毒品與防治》(增訂第二版),頁237-272。五南圖書。 廖福特(2005)。〈聯合國對國家人權委員會之推動與實踐〉,《國際人權法—議題分析與國內實踐》,頁115-152。元照。 廖福特(2009),〈歐盟基本權利署之分析-創設歐盟「國家」人權機構?〉,收於:洪德欽(編),《歐盟人權政策》,頁17-52。中央研究院。 廖福特(2011),英國平等及人權委員會,收於:氏著,《國家人權委員會》,頁259-280。五南圖書。 廖福特(2017a),〈歷史發展及權利意涵〉,收於:孫迺翊、廖福特(編),《身心障礙者權利公約》,頁3-24。台灣新世紀文教基金會。 廖福特(2017b),〈監督機制〉,收於:孫迺翊、廖福特(編),《身心障礙者權利公約》,頁559-580。台灣新世紀文教基金會。 四、學位論文 王律筑(2023),《論精神疾病之強制性醫療處遇-以精神醫療實務工作者角度切入》,國立臺灣大學法律學系碩士論文(未出版),臺北市。 李欣恩(2020),《觸法精神障礙者之監護處分制度》,國立政治大學法律學系碩士學位論文(未出版),臺北市。 林思蘋(2009),《強制治療與監護處分-對精神障礙者之社會控制》。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北市。 林儀珏(2017)。《從身心障礙權利公約討論精神疾病患者之人身自由與安全—以國際標準評估衛生學界之看法》,東吳大學人權碩士學位學程碩士論文(未出版),臺北市。 張淑婷(2017),《精神障礙犯罪者處遇制度研究》,國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文(未出版),新北市。 張麗卿(1992),《精神疾病犯罪人處遇之比較研究》。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文(未出版),臺北市。 陳明堂(2017),《國際公約在台灣內國法化之研究-以人權與海洋法制為中心》,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所博士論文(未出版),新北市。 詹淳惠(2006),《論司法權中之司法行政作用》,國立成功大學法律學研究所博士論文(未出版),臺南市。 鄧鈞豪(2011),《強制社區治療制度之社會治理機能》。國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北市。 五、委託研究案 國家人權委員會(2023),《國家人權委員會「赴日本專案訪察精神障礙觸法者多元處遇法制及實務計畫」出國報告》,國家人權委員會。 張麗卿(編)(2022),《精神障礙觸法者處遇之研究-監護處分法制及司法判決研析委託研究案》,國家人權委員會。 蔡田木(編)(2022),《我國監護制度發展與變革之研究成果報告》,法務部司法官學院犯罪防治研究中心。 蔡宜家(2021),〈眾所期待的不定期監護處分?漫談日本醫療觀察法於入院期間的程序與疑義〉。司法官學院犯罪防治研究中心。https://www.cprc.moj.gov.tw/1563/36715/16811/28567/post 六、政府與官方組織文件 中華民國精神衛生護理學會(2023),《精神衛生專科護理師甄審項目及能力必備要項》,https://www.psynurse.org.tw/license12.aspx(最後瀏覽日期:02/15/2024) 立法院公報處(2022),《立法院公報》,111卷32期,頁465,立法院。 行政院(2017),《新世代反毒策略行動綱領》。行政院,臺北市 行政院(2022),《行政院第3741次會議》,https://www.ey.gov.tw/File/3F3844F18C59D344?A=C。行政院。 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》,頁1-14,行政院。 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2022),《國際審查委員會(IRC) 2022年8月6日就中華民國(臺灣) 施行身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)第二次國家報告結論性意見》。行政院。 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2022),《國際審查委員會(IRC) 2022年8月6日就中華民國(臺灣) 施行身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)第二次國家報告結論性意見》。行政院。 行政院身心障礙者權益推動小組(2022),《國際審查委員會(IRC) 2022年8月6日就中華民國(臺灣) 施行身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)第二次國家報告結論性意見》。行政院。 法務部(2017),《執行觀護案件手冊》。法務部。 法務部(2021),《施用毒品者再犯防止推進計畫(核定本)》。法務部。 法務部(2021),《新世代反毒策略行動綱領2.0》。法務部,臺北市。 法務部(2021),《檢察機關執行因心神喪失或精神耗弱受監護處分應行注意事項修正對照表》,https://mojlaw.moj.gov.tw/GetFile.aspx?pfid=0000265714。 法務部保護司(2022),《精神疾病之受刑人、受監護處分人加強社區轉銜機制參考指引》。法務部。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-84401-a80be1df-72cb-452a-8fd2-022469c6a4ab.html 監察院(2019),《108司調0019監察院調查報告》,監察院。https://cybsbox.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/43911 監察院(2020)。《109內正0017糾正案文》。監察院。https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17127 監察院(2021),《110司調0044監察院調查報告》,https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17726。監察院。 臺灣高等檢察署(2017),《刑罰執行手冊》。臺灣高等檢察署。 衛生福利部(2018),《強化社會安全網計畫(核定本)》。衛生福利部。 衛生福利部(2021),《強化社會安全網第二期計畫》。衛生福利部。 七、網路資料與新聞稿 「精神障礙觸法者處遇制度」座談會網站(無日期):https://nhrc.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=7478&s=4355 【懶人包】人權期中考:聯合國人權公約審查在台灣?!(無日期):https://covenantswatch.org.tw/publications/hr-in-a-glimpse/untreatyreview-in-taiwan/(最後瀏覽日期:02/15/2024。) 司法改革國是會議(無日期):https://justice.president.gov.tw/(最後瀏覽日:02/15/2024)。 司法院少年及家事廳(04/18/2023),〈精神衛生法修法:擴大司法審查範圍、採行專家參審 司法院說明修法重點、並開箱懶人包〉,《司法院》,https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-848686-9cba9-1.html(最後瀏覽日期:02/15/2024) 法務部(04/27/2022),〈推動精神疾病患者之受刑人及受處分人出監(院)加強社區轉銜機制,維護社會安全〉,《法務部新聞稿》,https://www.moj.gov.tw/2204/2795/2796/133136/post 國家人權委員會(2022)。〈國家人權委員會針對精神障礙觸法者處遇制度相關修法之聲明〉,《國家人權委員會新聞稿》,https://www-ws.cy.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMy9yZWxmaWxlLzg5MTIvMjE4NDAvYTg5ODZhYWMtMjM2MC00OTczLTgzYjgtN2FmOWQ0ODVjNTFmLnBkZg%3d%3d&n=MTEwMTAyMOaWsOiBnueovy5wZGY%3d 貳、日文文獻 一、出版品 独立行政法人国立精神神経医療研究センター(2012),〈治療プログラム〉,《医療覾察法審判》,頁207。独立行政法人国立精神神経医療研究センター,東京都。 二、政府文件 東京都福祉保健局(2013),〈医療観察法地域処遇体制基盤構築事業調査結果報告書〉。独立行政法人国立精神神経医療研究センター,東京都。 法務省(2010)。ヒアリング項目に対する意見書(府省名:法務省)。https://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/suishin/kaikaku/s_kaigi/k_9/pdf/s1.pdf。 厚生労働省(2010)。ヒアリング項目に対する意見書(府省名:厚生労働省)。https://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/suishin/kaikaku/s_kaigi/k_10/pdf/s2.pdf。 厚生労働省(2019),《指定入院医療機関運営ガイドライン》,https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12601000/001080396.pdf 日本精神神経学会、障害者制度改革に向けたプロジェクト(2010)。障害者制度改革の推進のための基本的な方向について」に対する意見―精神科医療に関する分野を中心に―。https://www.jspn.or.jp/uploads/uploads/files/activity/2010_12_25shougaisyasks.pdf。 障害者政策委員会(2012)。障害者政策委員会 第3小委員会(第3回)資料一覧,頁6-8。https://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/suishin/seisaku_iinkai/s_3/3/pdf/s1.pdf。 三、網路資料 再犯防止対策,https://www.moj.go.jp/hisho/seisakuhyouka/hisho04_00038.html(最後瀏覽日:15/02/2024)。 障がい者制度改革推進本部、障がい者制度改革推進会議、差別禁止部会,https://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/suishin/kaikaku/kaikaku.html(最後瀏覽日期:15/02/2024)。 參、英文文獻 一、專書 Christopher Slobogin (2006). Minding Justice. Harvard University Press. Gerard Quinn et al. (2002). Human Rights and Disability- The Current Use and Future Potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability (HR/PUB/02/01). United Nations. Judy Chamberlin (2004). On Our Own (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill. Michael Freeman (2011). Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach 2nd. Polity. P. Ishwara Bhat (2020). Idea and Methods of Legal Research (ebook). Oxford University Press. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2023). Implementing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – the Role of Independent Monitoring Frameworks Practical Guide (HR/P/PT/28). United Nations. 二、期刊論文 Arlene S. Kanter (2019). Let''s Try Again: Why the United States Should Ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, Touro Law Review, 35(1), 301-344. Barbara Ann Stolz (2015). The Growth of Federal Criminal Justice Policy Making: The Role of U.S. Civil Rights Legislation, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(5), 463-487. Barbara Everett (1994). Something is Happening: The Contemporary Consumer and Psychiatric Survivor Movement in Historical Context. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 15(1/2), 55–70. Charles F. Szymanski (2009). The Globalization of Disability Rights Law – From the Americans with Disabilities Act to the UN Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities, Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 2(1), 18-34. Chia-Heng Lin et al. (2022). Psychiatric Evaluations in Offenders with Mental Illness: A Case Series, Taiwan Journal of. Psychiatry, 36, 39-43. Christopher Slobogin (2016). 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, Law and Psychology Review, 40, 297-320. David J. Rissmiller and Joshua H. Rissmiller (2006). Evolution of the Antipsychiatry Movement into Mental Health Consumerism, Psychiatry Service, 57 (6), 863-866. Donna Marie McNamara (2018). The Insanity Defense, Indefinite Detention and the UN Convention; The United Nations Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities and Mental Health Law, Dubin. University. Law Journal, 41 (1), 143-174. Eric Roytman (2020). Kahler v. Kansas: The End of the Insanity Defense? Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy Sidebar, 43-58. George Szmukler (2019). “Capacity”, “best interests”, “will and preferences” and the UN Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities, World Psychiatric, 18, 34-41. George Szmukler (2020). Offenders with a Mental Impairment Under a ‘Fusion Law’: Non-Discrimination, Treatment, Public Protection, International Journal of Health and Capacity Law, 26, 35-51. Harvey Gordon and Per Lindqvist (2007). Forensic psychiatry in Europe, Psychiatric Bulletin, 31, 421-424. Henry A. Dlugacz (2017). The Reach and Limitation of the ADA and its Integration Mandate: Implications for the Successful Reentry of Individuals with Mental Disabilities in a Correctional Population, Behavior Science Law, 35, 135-161. Janet E. Lord (2010). Shared Understanding or Consensus-Masked Disagreement? The Anti-Torture Framework in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 33, 27-82. Jeanne Matthews Bender (1984). After Abolition: The Present State of the Insanity Defense in Montana, Montana Law Review, 45, 133-150. 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 Dawson& George Szmukler (2006). Fusion of mental health and incapacity legislation, 188 Brit. J. of Psychiatry, 188, 504-509. John Kip Cornwell (1988). The Failure of Federal Intervention for Mentally Retarded John Tully (Oct. 2023). Forensic Psychiatry in the UK: an overview of clinical practice and research. In Breaking Barriers in Forensic Psychiatry: An International Academic Exchange. Taiwan Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Joseph D. Bloom (2012). CRIPA, Olmstead, and the Transformation of the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40(3), 383-389. Joseph D. Bloom and Mary Claire Buckley (2013). The Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board: 1978–2012, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(4), 560-567. Joseph D. Bloom and Scott E. Kirkorsky (2021). Arizona’s Insanity Defense, Clark, and the 2007 Legislature, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 51(4), 1-5. Juan E. Mezzich (2007). Psychiatry for the Person: articulating medicine’s science and humanism, World Psychiatry, 6(2), 65-67. Judi Chamberlin (1995). Rehabilitating Ourselves: The Psychiatric Survivor Movement, International Journal of Mental Health, 24(1), 39-46. Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1999), Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51, 89-101. Kevin Chien-Chang Wu and Wei-Tsuen Soong (2008). Ethical Issues in Mandatory Community Treatment, Taiwanese Journal of Psychiatry, 22 (2), 84-95. Larry Cunningham (2010). New York''s Post-Verdict Scheme for the Treatment of Insanity Acquittees: Balancing Public Safety withRights of the Mentally Ill, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, 25(1), 81-98. Latham, R. and Williams, H. K. (2020). Community forensic psychiatric services in England and Wales. CNS Spectrums, 25(5), 604–617. Lawrence O Gostin et al. (2019). The legal determinants of health: harnessing the power of law for global health and sustainable development, The Lancet, 393, 1857-1910. Lian-Yu Chen (2023). Social Security Net for the Mentally Ill, Taiwan Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 3-4. Lisa A. Callahan (1995). The Hidden Effects of Montana''s "Abolition" of the Insanity Defense, Psychiatric Quarterly, 66(2), 103-117. Louise Kennefick (2011). Introducing a New Diminished Responsibility Defence for England and Wales, Modern Law Review, 74(5), 750-766. Matthé Scholten and Jakov Gathe (2018). Adverse consequences of article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Perons with Disabilities for Persons with mental disabilities and an alternative way forward, Journal of Medical Ethics, 44, 226-233. Melvyn Colin Freeman et al. (2015). Reversing hard won victories in the name of HumanRights: a critique of the General Comment on Article 12 of the UN Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities, Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 844-850. Michael L. Perlin (2002). “There Must be Some Way Out of Here”: Why the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is Potentially the Best Weapon in the Fight Against Sanism, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(3), 462-476. Michael L. Perlin (2017). "God Said to Abraham/Kill Me A Son": Why the Insanity Defense and the Incompetency Status are Compatible with and Required by The Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities and Basic Principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, American Criminal Law Review, 54(2), 477-520 Michael L. Perlin (2018). "Your Old Road Is/ Rapidly Aging": International Human Rights Standards and Their Impact on Forensic Psychologists the Practice of Forensic Psychology, and The Conditions of Institutionalization of Persons with Mental Disabilities, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 17, 79-111. Michael L. Perlin et al. (2022). "The Distant Ships of Liberty": Why Criminology to Take Seriously International Human Rights Laws Apply to Persons with Disabilities, Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, 31, 373-399. Muthusamy Natarajan et al. (2012). Community forensic psychiatry and the forensic mental health liaison model, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 18(6), 408–415. Norbert Nedopil and Bernd Offermann (1993). Treatment of Mentally Ill Offenders in Germany: With Special Reference to the Newest Forensic Hospital- Straubing in Bavaria, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 16(1–2), 247-255. Norbert Nedopil and Karin Banzer (1996). Outpatient Treatment of Forensic Patients in Germany: Current Structure and Future Developments, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 19(1), 75-79. Paul S. Appelbaum (2019). Saving the UN Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities – from itself, World Psychiatry, 18(1), 1–2. People, Yale Law Journal, 97(5), 845-862. Peter Bartlett (2012). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Mental Health Law, Modern Law Review, 75, 752-778. Piers Gooding and Tova Bennet (2018). The Abolition of the Insanity Defense in Sweden and the United Nations Convention on the Rights. of Persons with Disabilities: Human Rights Brinkmanship or Evidence It Won''t Work? New Criminal Law Review, 21(1), 141-169. Rachel Edworthy et al. (2016). Inpatient forensic psychiatric care: Legal frameworks and service provision in three European countries, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 18-27. Rüdiger Müller-Isberner et al. (2000). Forensic Psychiatric Assessment and Treatment in Germany Legal Framework, Recent Developments, and Current Practice, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23(5–6), 467-480. Scott E. Kirkorsky et al. (2019). The Migration of Arizona’s Post-Insanity Defense Procedures to a Modified GBMI Model, Journal of American Acaedemic Psychiatry Law, 51(4), 1-7. Sheila Wildeman (2013). Protecting Rights and Building Capacities: Challenges to Global Mental Health Policy in Light of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Volum 41, Issue 1, 48-73. Sidney Tarrow (1993). Cycles of Collective Action: Between Moments of Madness and the Repertoire of Contention, Social Science History, 17(2), 281-307. Stephen Meyers (2014). Global Civil Society as Megaphone or Echo Chamber? Voice in the International Disability Rights Movement, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 27, 459–476. Stuart A. Anfang and Paul S. Appelbaum (2006). Civil Commitment—The American Experience, Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 43(3), 209–218. Thomas D. Grant (2012). The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): Some Observations on U.S. Participation, Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 25, 171-235. Thomas Ross et al. (2020). Rising inpatient numbers in forensic security hospitals of German federal state of Baden-Wurttemberg: Background and explanatory approaches, Behavior Science and Law, 38, 522–536. Tim Exworthy and John Gunn (2003). Taking Another Tilt at High Secure Hospitals: The Tilt Report and its consequences for secure psychiatric services. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(6), 469–471. Tim Opgenhaffen (2020). Deprivation of Liberty in Care. An ECHR and CRPD Approach and its Consequences for Belgium, European Journal of Health Law, 27(2), 147-167. Tina Minkowitz (2012). CRPD Advocacy by the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry: The Emergence of an User/Survivor Perspective in HumanRights. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2326668 Tina Minkowitz (2014). Rethinking Criminal Responsibility from a Critical Disability Perspective: The Abolition of Insanity Incapacity Acquittals and Unfitness to Plead, and beyond, Griffith Law Review, 23(3), 434-466. Trine Flockhart (2006). ‘Complex Socialization’: A Framework for the Study of State Socialization. European journal of international relations, 12 (1), 89-118. 三、專書篇章 Bradley Lewis (2006), A Mad Fight: Psychiatry and Disability Activisim, In Lennard J. Davis ed., The Disability Studies Reader (2nd. ed.), 339-353. Routledge. Éva Szeli (2019). Mental Disability, Trauma, and Human Rights., In Lisa D. Butler et al. eds., Trauma and Human Rights,207-220. Palgrave Macmillan. Juan E. Mezzich et al. (2016). Person-Centered Integrative Diagnosis and its Context. In Juan E. Mezzich et al. eds, Person Centered Psychiatry, 139-156. Springer. Juan E. Mezzich, Interduction to Person-Centered Psychiatry. In Juan E. Mezzich et al. eds, Person Centered Psychiatry, 1-18. Springer. Lana Mužinić'' et al. (2016). Person-Oriented Forensic Psychiatry. In Juan E. Mezzich et al. eds, Person Centered Psychiatry, 113-126. Springer. Philip Fennell (2010). Powers of the Police and Decision to Prosecute, In Lawerence Gostin et al., eds., Principles of Mental Health Law and Policy, 701-720. Oxford University Press. Philip Fennell (2010). Review of the Lawfulness of Detention in the Courts and Mental Health Tribunals, In Lawerence Gostin et al., eds., Principles of Mental Health Law and Policy, 577-642. Oxford University Press. Ronald Mackay (2010), Mental Disability at the Time of Offense, Lawerence Gostin et al., eds., Principles of Mental Health Law and Policy, 721-756. Oxford University Press. Ruth S. Shim et al. (2015). Overview of the Social Determinants of Mental Health. In Michael T. Compton& Ruth S. Shim eds, The Social Determinants of Mental Health, 1-22. American Psychiatry Publishing. Stephen Meyers (2014). Disabled Persons Associations at The Crossroads of Two Organizational Environments: Grassroots Groups as Part of An International Movement and Local Civil Society. In Barbara M. Altman& Sharon N. Barnartt eds., Environmental Contexts and Disability, 3-31. Emerald Publishing Limited. Theresia Degener (2017). A Human Rights Model of Disability, In Peter Balnck and Eilionoir Flynn eds., Routledge Handbook of Disability Law and Human Rights, 35-38. Routledge. Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink (1999). The socialization of international HumanRights norms into domestic practices Introduction, In Thomas Risse ed., Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion in International Relations, 117-149. Routledge. William Burnham (2011). Criminal Law, In Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States (5th ed.), 549-579. West Academic Publishing. 四、聯合國文件 Committee Against Torture (2008). General Comment No. 2 Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties (CAT/C/GC/2). United Nations. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2017). General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19 (CEDAW/C/GC/35). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2013). Initial reports of States parties due in 2011 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CRPD/C/GBR/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2013). Initial reports of States parties (CRPD/C/DEU/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2013). Observations on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners prepared by Comm. on theRights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD/SMR). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014). General comment No. 1 (CRPD/C/GC/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014). List of issues in relation to the initial report of Germany (CRPD/C/DEU/Q/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015). Concluding observations on the initial report of Germany (CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015). Guidelines on article 14 of the Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017) Concluding observations on the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CRPD/C/GBR/CO/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017). General comment No. 5 (2017) on living independently and being included in the community (CRPD/C/GC/5). Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017). Information received from Germany on follow-up to the concluding observations (CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1/Add. 1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017). Initial report submitted by Japan under article 35 of the Convention, due in 2016 (CRPD/C/JPN/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017). List of issues in relation to the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CRPD/C/GBR/Q/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017). Replies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the list of issues (CRPD/C/GBR/Q/1/Add.1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017). Replies of Germany to the list of issues (CRPD/C/DEU/Q/1/Add. 1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018). List of issues prior to submission of the combined second and third periodic report of Germany (CRPD/C/DEU/QPR/2-3). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2019). Combined second and third reports submitted by Germany under article 35 of the Convention, pursuant to the optional reporting procedure, due in 2019 (C/CRPD/C/DEU/2-3). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2019). List of issues in relation to the initial report of Japan (CRPD/C/JPN/Q/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2022). Concluding observations on the initial report of Japan (CRPD/C/JPN/CO/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2022). Guidelines on deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies (CRPD/C/5). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2022). Replies of Japan to the list of issues in relation to its initial report (CRPD/C/JPN/RQ/1). United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2023). Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of Germany (CRPD/C/DEU/CO/2-3). United Nations. Human Rights Committee (1992). General comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). United Nations. Human Rights Committee (2009). Thematic Study by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (A/HRC/10/48). United Nations. Human Rights Committee (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez (A/HRC/22/53). United Nations. Human Rights Committee (2014). General comment No. 35 (CCPR/C/GC/35). United Nations. United Nations. Human Rights Committee (2014). Thematic study on the right of Perons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community (A/HRC/28/37). United Nations. Human Rights Council (2017). Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 28 September 2017-36/13. Mental health and human rights (A/HRC/RES/36/13). United Nations. Human Rights Council (2020). Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 19 June 2020-43/13. Mental health and human rights (A/HRC/RES/43/13). United Nations. Human Rights Council (2023). Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 3 April 2023-52/12. Mental health and human rights (A/HRC/RES/52/12). United Nations. Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Committee on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (2008). Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/63/175). United Nations. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2016). Approach of Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment regarding the Rights of Persons institutionalized and treated medically without informed consent (CAT/OP/27/2). United Nations. 五、政府文件 Bundesministerium für arbeit und soziales (2014). Responses to the questions from the List of Issues in connection with the first German country review. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/DownloadDraft.aspx?key=ZD0gZb9SfmVZBqcl5LHdMAPtzoXm2s4h0lZXSMgkZlX4/Q9CWeimgdAdl1LZOEdPcIZtxpuT6R99gBR0aYkLzA== Bundesministerium für arbeit und soziales (2023). Measures of The Federal Republic of Germany Implementing the United Nations Convention on The Right. of Persons with Disabilities in the Period from September 2019 Until March 2023. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/DownloadDraft.aspx?key=af6flM/DbBqPE2/waqXlpByfZkDe77oVkLz/UY4uzh3lewPBEQd62BNvTna+M+OljcQKdUzZG5QTkEoO2p6URQ== Bundesministerium für arbeit und soziales (2023). Measures of the Federal Republic of Germany Implementing the United Nations Convention on The of Persons With Disabilities in the Period from September 2019 Until March 2023. California Administrative Office of the Courts (2011). Task Force for Criminal Justice Collaboration on Mental Health Issues: Final Report. https://www.couRightsca.gov/documents/Mental_Health_Task_Force_Report_042011.pdf California Department of State Hospitals (2019). Forensic Services Dep’ts Staffing Study- NGI PC1026 Forensic Process Workload, https://www.dsh.ca.gov/Treatment/docs/DSH_NGI_1026_Process_Flowchart_2019-02-19.pdf. Conference of Chief Justices & Conference of State Court Administrators (2000). In Support of Problem-Solving Courts. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2015). Preventing Deaths in Detention of Adults with Mental Health Conditions- An Inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/adult_deaths_in_detention_inquiry_report.pdf Equality and Human Rights Commission (2017). Disability Rights in the UK- UK Independent Mechanism Update Submission to yhe UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Advance of The Public Examination Of The UK’S Implementation of the UN CRPD. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2021/disability-rights-UK-july-2017.pdf Forensic CCQI (2023) See Think Act. Royal College of Psychiatry. https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/ccqi/quality-networks/secure-forensic/forensic-see-think-act-qnfmhs/see-think-act---3rd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=f8cf3c24_4 HM Prison& Probation Service (2023). MAPPA Guidance. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641825e1d3bf7f79d4aa6c8b/MAPPA_Guidance__March_2023_.docx HM Prison& Probation Services (2020). Mentally disordered offenders - the restricted patient system. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f736aa2d3bf7f287328e597/MHCS_The_Restricted_Patient_System_v1_Dec_2017.doc Law Commission (2015). Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty- a Consultation Paper. https://lawcom.gov.uk/document/mental-capacity-and-deprivation-of-liberty-consultation/ Law Commission (2017). Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty. https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/mental-capacity-and-deprivation-of-liberty/ Ministry of Justice (2009). The recall of conditionally discharged restricted patients. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7502a2ed915d3c7d529b1b/recall-of-conditionally-discharged-restricted-patients.pdf National Health Service (2018). Carer support and involvement in secure mental health services. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/secure-carers-toolkit-v2.pdf New York Office of Mental Health (2023). Adult Forensic ACT RFP – Four (4) New Teams Request for Proposals. https://omh.ny.gov/omhweb/rfp/2023/forensic/forensic_act_rfp.pdf Royal College of Psychiatrists (2023). Standards for Forensic Mental Health Services Fifth Edition. https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/ccqi/quality-networks/secure-forensic/forensic-standards-qnfmhs/quality-network-for-forensic-mental-health-services---fifth-edition-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=bf08b5e6_4 SAMHSA (2019). Forensic Assertive Community Treatment. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep19-fact-br.pdf Special Committee on Human Rights (2016). The Convention on the Rights. of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): Implications for psychiatrists and mental health law. Royal College of Psychiatrists. https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/about-us/who-we-are/schr-convention-on-the-rights-of-Persons-with-disabilities-q-and-a.pdf?sfvrsn=c8d1db87_6 U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (2005). A Guide to Mental Health Court Design and Implementation. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Programs/Guide-MHC-Design.pdf World Health Organization (2010). Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/70185/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf?sequence=1 World Health Organization (2010). Framework For Action On Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/70185/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf?sequence=1 六、聲明稿或新聞稿 Daniel Hazen& Tina Minkowitz (2013). [Press Release]. A Discussion Paper on Policy Issues at the Intersection of the Mental Health System and the Prison System International Disability Alliance, Mental Disability Advocacy Center & the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry International Disability Alliance (2008, Apr. 25). [Memoranda]. Position Paper on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and Other Instruments. International Disability Alliance and the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (2012, Feb. 22). [Memorandum]. Submission to the Sub Committee on Prevention of Torture for Thematic Discussion on Mental Health and Places of Deprivation of Liberty. International Disability Alliance et al. (2012). [Memoranda]. UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on his upcoming thematic paper on torture in the context of healthcare. NAMI (2003, Aug. 29). [Press Release]. NAMI Consumer Council to Host Consumer/Survivor Leadership Forum. Tina Minkowitz (2011, Aug.31). [Memorandum]. Recognizing Forced and Coerced Psychiatric Interventions Against Women, Men and Children as a Harmful Cultural Practice. Tina Minkowitz (2011, Mar. 14). [Memorandum]. WNUSP Submission on Revision of the Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners Tina Minkowitz (2012). [Memorandum]. Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities and the Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners. World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (2011, Jun.17.). [Press Release]. Legal Capacity as Right, Principle and Paradigm Submission to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in response to its Call for Papers on theoretical and practical implementation of Article 12. World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (2012). [Memoranda]. Statement on Review of the Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners. World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry and International Disability Alliance (2010, Oct.). [Press Release]. The Elephant in the Room – Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment and the WHO. 七、網路資料與其他資料 California Department of State Hospitals (n.d.). Conditional Release. https://www.dsh.ca.gov/treatment/conditional_release.html (last visited Feb. 15, 2024) California Department of State Hospitals. Treatment (n.d.). https://www.dsh.ca.gov/Treatment/index.html (last visited Jan. 21, 2024) Mind (2020). Leaving hospital. https://www.mind.org.uk/media-a/6156/leaving-hospital-2020.pdf National Health Service. Mental Capacity Act. NHS (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/making-decisions-for-someone-else/mental-capacity-act/ (last visited Jan. 21, 2024). New York Division of Forensic Services Bureau of Institutional and Transitional Services (BITS) (n.d.). Retrieved from https://omh.ny.gov/omhweb/forensic/bits/ (last visited 15/02/2014) New York Division of Forensic Services Diversion Center (n.d.). Retrieved from https://omh.ny.gov/omhweb/forensic/diversion.htm (last visited 15/02/2014) Royal College of Psychiatrists (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/about-us/our-people-and-how-we-make-decisions/committees-of-council/human-rights (last visited 15/02/2014) U.N. O.H.C.H.R (n.d.). Ratification Status for CRPD. UN Treaty Body Database. Retrieved from https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CRPD (last visited 15/02/2014) U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (2012). Mental Health Courts Program, https://bja.ojp.gov/program/mental-health-courts-program/overview (last visited 15/02/2014) | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92593 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來,心理社會障礙者所引起之犯罪事件受到國人關注,促使有關當局積極推動相應的犯罪防治、社會福利與公共衛生政策改革。而與心理社會障礙犯罪者最具關聯者,即係2022年刑事監護處分制度修法,從以往機構處遇為主、處遇期間以5年為限的機制,修正為多元處遇模式,並將處遇期間修正為「5年(初始期限)+3年(第一次延長期限)+N年(逐年審查)」的不定期處遇制度。刑事監護處分修正後,引起國內民間團體抗議,並在我國第二次身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)審查時,亦遭認定違反其規範,促請我國修正刑事監護處分。
有鑒於前述我國法之爭議,本文透過比較法研究,探討CRPD對於刑事監護處分之相關規範與爭議。本文首先分析CRPD對於刑事監護處分之見解,以及國際身心障礙團體、學者專家與不同國際公約對於CRPD之見解與態度;再者,則以英國與美國為主要比較國,德國與日本為輔助比較國,觀察上開四國在CRPD批准前後之心理社會障礙犯罪者處遇模式之變化與脈絡,並以上開觀察內容建立評判基準,提出我國刑事監護處分法制與政策面之政策芻議。本研究發現,CRPD對於各國刑事監護處分制度的影響性可以光譜方式加以呈現,在「已經改變」、「可以(正在)改變」與「不能改變」三者之間游移:英國的調整較不明顯,至多將CRPD列為政策考量面向;日本的醫療觀察法與國內司法實務見解中雖無法看出CRPD對醫療觀察制度之影響,然其在身心障礙政策改革相關會議當中,可看到對於醫療觀察制度的諸多見解與討論,德國則在2016年刑法與刑事訴訟法的修正中對於安置於精神病院處分者保障措施有明顯的進步。而未批准CRPD的美國,由於該國制度的多元性,以及美國身心障礙者權利法(The American Disability Act, ADA)與相關判決先例及成文法規範的情況下,與批准CRPD國家並無特別大的落差,反而發展出更為多元的刑事處監護處分制度。 我國於CRPD內國法化以後,在人權監督、檢察官訪視機制、專業小組評估與司法審查、明文規定拘束人身自由之時機與方式,以及延長與停止執行之明文規範方面符合CRPD之精神,然對於受處分人的基本權利保障、家屬照顧、保安處分執行法與精神衛生法二者之銜接與體系定位仍有強化空間,應持續深化社區處遇機制,以「回歸社區、自立生活、避免漏接」為核心,建立社區處遇專責人員、精神衛生專責法庭制度,並確立司法行政救濟體系為目標,最終廢除不定期處遇制度,俾使在人權保障與社會安全中取得最大公約數。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In recent years, crimes committed by people with psychosocial disabilities have attracted public attention and concern in Taiwan. The situation has driven the government to actively promote corresponding reforms in criminal justice, social welfare, and public health policies. One of the most relevant policies for criminals with psychosocial disabilities is the revision of criminal custody system. Before the current revised statutes came into force, criminal custody measures in Taiwan mainly comprised institutional treatment and their duration must not exceed 5 years. After the amendment of the Criminal Law and Rehabilitative Disposition Execution Act, the criminal custody institution in Taiwan adopts a diversified treatment model. The intervention period was expanded to “5+3+N” years of indefinite treatment period, in which the initial limit of custody is 5 years, the first extension is limited to 3 years, and then year by year review is mandated. Following the revision of the criminal custody institution, domestic civil rights groups in Taiwan protested. Also, During the second International Review of Taiwan’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), review experts urged Taiwan government to further amend the institution to correct the violations.
In view of the controversies in criminal custody, this master thesis intends to utilize a comparative legal research method to explore the CRPD’s policy and related debates about criminal custody. First, the thesis analyzes the views on criminal custody of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on criminal custody, and compares its views with those of the international disability groups and scholars addressing the issues. Then, the thesis selects four countries: the United Kingdom and the United States are the main comparison countries; Germany and Japan are the auxiliary comparison countries. It aims to observe the context and changes of the criminal custody in the U.K., Germany and Japan before and after the ratification of the CRPD. Not ratifying the CRPD, the U.S. is included as a basic contrast to tease out the impact of the CRPD on criminal custody policy making. The study found that the impact of the CRPD in various countries can be presented in a spectral manner, ranging between "already changed", "changing" and "cannot change". The adjustment in the U.K. is less obvious, at most, the CRPD is listed as a policy consideration. In Japan, although the impact of the CRPD on the criminal custody was not seen in the statutes and practices of Japan’s Medical Treatment and Supervision Act, it can be seen in exchanges during the meetings as regards disability policy reform that relates to criminal custody. In Germany, the amended Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law in 2016 has made significant progress in safeguarding measures for those under criminal custody in Forensic Hospitals. Differing significantly from those countries that approved the CRPD, the U.S. has not ratified the CRPD because of the diversity of the country''s criminal justice system, the provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), relevant court judgments and other legal protections. Instead, it has developed a more diversified criminal custody system. After the CRPD’s incorporation into domestic law in Taiwan, our country has complied with the policy of the CRPD in terms of independent human rights supervision policy, prosecutor visit mechanisms, the establishment of professional criminal custody assessment team, and judicial reviews. It has clearly stipulated timing and methods of restraining personal freedom, and explicit norms for extension and suspension of execution of criminal custody. However, there is still room for strengthening the human rights protection and family care in criminal custody, and for the system positioning and connection between the Rehabilitative Disposition Execution Act and the Mental Health Act. Appointing specific staff in charge, the community treatment mechanism should continue to be thoroughly developed to help the mentally ill offenders to achieve the core ideals of "returning to the community, living independently,” and “avoiding the slip from the supporting networks.” It is a worthy goal to establish mental health courts, to secure a timely and accessible judicial and administrative petition system, to abolish the indefinite treatment system, and finally to find the greatest common denominator in human rights protection and social security. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-05-02T16:06:29Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-05-02T16:06:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
摘要 II Abstract IV 目次 VII 圖次 XI 表次 XIII 英文縮寫對照表 XIV 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起與問題意識 1 壹、研究緣起 1 貳、問題意識 4 第二節 文獻回顧 4 壹、CRPD施行前相關文獻 5 貳、CRPD施行後的相關文獻探討 5 參、小結 11 第三節 研究方法、範圍與限制 12 壹、研究方法 12 貳、研究架構 15 參、名詞解釋 17 肆、研究範圍與限制 19 第二章 CRPD與刑事監護處分之立場與見解 21 第一節 CRPD的歷史脈絡與見解 21 壹、心理社會障礙者權利保障背景 21 貳、CRPD之模式與精神 25 參、CRPD對刑事監護處分的影響方式 28 第二節 CRPD對刑事監護處分之見解 31 壹、第12條「在法律前獲得平等承認」 31 貳、第14條「人身自由與安全」 34 參、第15條至第17條:禁止酷刑與保障人格完整性 36 肆、第19條:自立生活與融入社區 39 第三節 關於CRPD對刑事監護處分之不同見解 42 壹、身心障礙團體見解:基於人權模式,反對醫療模式 42 貳、學者專家見解 46 參、不同國際規範的立場與見解 56 第四節 小結 61 第三章 CRPD施行前各國刑事監護制度 63 第一節 刑事監護處分制度特徵 63 壹、實體法面 63 貳、程序法面 66 參、刑事執行法面 68 第二節 我國刑事監護處分制度 69 壹、刑法對於刑事監護處分之規範 69 貳、保執法對於刑事監護處分之規範 72 第三節 英國 74 壹、英國的精神障礙抗辯事由與處分方式 75 貳、相關處遇機制 77 第四節 美國 88 壹、聯邦政策 89 貳、加州 93 參、紐約州 98 肆、其他特殊制度州 105 第五節 日本 108 壹、日本醫療觀察法審理模式 108 貳、處遇執行方式 109 第六節 德國 111 壹、保安處分的合憲性:CRPD以前的爭執與見解 112 貳、德國安置於精神病院處分制度 112 第四章 各國刑事監護處分對CRPD之立場與回應 121 第一節 CRPD與臺灣刑事監護制度 121 壹、CRPD內國法化推動歷程概述 121 貳、因應CRPD:刑法與保執法之修正脈絡 123 參、修正後之評價:民團爭議與CRPD第二次國際審查 128 第二節 CRPD對各國刑事監護制度的影響 130 壹、英國 130 貳、日本 134 參、德國 137 肆、美國 144 第三節 CRPD對各國刑事監護處分影響性分析 151 壹、CRPD之貢獻與限制 151 貳、本文就CRPD對於刑事監護處分的評價基準 155 參、締約國對應CRPD的作為觀察 161 第四節 小結 169 第五章 我國刑事監護處分制度之反思 171 第一節 臺灣刑事監護處分評析 171 壹、符合CRPD之處 171 貳、不符合CRPD之處 174 第二節 政策方向與核心精神擇定 185 壹、改革政策精神之建構 186 貳、可行的改革措施與方向 191 第四節 小結 203 第六章 結論 206 第一節 研究結論 206 壹、CRPD採行多元觀點之見解與其侷限 206 貳、各國之實踐方式、能與不能之處 207 參、我國刑事監護處分未來方向建議 207 第二節 研究展望與反思 208 壹、反思CRPD「極端」的原因 208 貳、理想與現實的對話與考驗 209 參、我國刑事監護制度的未來展望與接續研究 210 後記 212 參考資料 216 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 刑事監護處分「多元化」? 身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)對刑事監護處分制度之挑戰 | zh_TW |
dc.title | "Diversification" of Criminal Custody? The Challenges of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to Criminal Custody | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 張兆恬 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | Chao-Tien Chang | en |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 廖福特;潘怡宏 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Fort Fu-Te Liao;Yi-Hung Pan | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 刑事監護處分,身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD),保安處分執行法,社區處遇,精神衛生法, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Criminal Custody,Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,Disposition Execution Act,Community Treatment,Mental Health Law, | en |
dc.relation.page | 244 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202400883 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2024-04-22 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 國家發展研究所 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 國家發展研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-112-2.pdf | 4.11 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。