論憲法對受監護處分之精神障礙者之保障：以正當法律程序為中心

Abstract

對於觸犯刑法之精神障礙者，為避免其再犯對社會安全造成危害，我國係透過刑法保安處分章節之監護處分進行處遇，希望藉由改善其病情之方式降低其再犯危險。同時，因監護處分涉及國家以公權力對精神障礙犯罪者實施強制精神治療，自應遵循正當法律程序，以確保精神障礙犯罪者之人身自由及其他基本權利不會受到過度侵害，且應保障其事前及事後之救濟權。

立法院於2022年通過刑法第87條監護處分及保安處分執行法第46條等修正草案，其重點包含取消執行期間之最高上限，改採定期延長制，以及新增多樣化的處遇方式與設立專業評估小組，某程度也呼應釋字第799號解釋所要求之配套措施。然而，監護處分新制仍存在諸多待解的問題。本文所關切者，例如監護處分之決定程序是否符合法官保留原則？在聲請延長及聲請免除處分之審查程序中，對於受處分人之程序保障是否足夠？以及受處分人有無單獨向法院請求救濟之權利等等，將於本文中依依檢視。

另一方面，日本則是透過獨立之醫療觀察制度來處理精神障礙犯罪者的問題，希望以適當的治療降低精神障礙犯罪者之再犯風險。其中，醫療觀察法就決定主體的構成、對於當事人在程序中獲得法律協助、陳述意見等正當程序保障，以及相關救濟程序之設計，均有我國可以師法學習之處，以改善現行監護處分制度對於受處分之精神障礙者之權利保障。

For people with mental disorders who violate criminal law, to prevent recidivism and ensure public safety, our country handles such individuals through custodial disposition under the Criminal Code's section on security measures. The aim is to reduce the risk of reoffending by improving their mental condition. Given that custodial disposition involves the state exercising public authority to enforce compulsory psychiatric treatment on offenders with mental disorders, it is essential to adhere to due process of law to ensure that their personal freedom and other fundamental rights are not excessively infringed upon, and to guarantee their right to remedy both before and after the enforcement. In 2022, the Legislative Yuan passed amendments to Article 87 of the Criminal Code and Article 46 of the Rehabilitative Disposition Execution Act. These amendments include removing the maximum duration of the enforcement of custodial disposition and adopting a system of periodic extensions, as well as introducing various treatment methods and establishing a professional evaluation team. To some extent, these changes respond to the requirements set out in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 799. However, there remain several unresolved issues with the new custodial disposition. This article concerns, for example, whether the decision-making process for custodial disposition complies with the principle of prior judicial review, whether procedural protection for the person subject to custodial disposition are sufficient during the application for extension and review of the disposition removal, and whether the person subject to the measure has the right to seek remedies from the court independently. These issues will be examined in this article. On the other hand, Japan addresses the problem of offenders with mental disorders through an independent medical observation system, aiming to reduce the risk of reoffending through appropriate treatment. The Medical Observation Act includes provisions regarding the composition of the decision-making body, the provision of legal assistance to the party during proceedings, the right to express opinions, and the design of related remedy procedures. These aspects offer valuable lessons for improving the current custodial disposition system in our country, particularly in enhancing the protection of the rights of mentally-illness people who subject to custodial disposition.