再犯認定、處遇等同性與機關分工──從大法庭裁定觀察毒品施用者處遇的法理發展與運作情形

Relapse, Treatment and Assignment:A Study on Addiction Treatment from Great Panel Adjudication

2020年7月15日毒品危害防制條例新法上路，卻引發司法實務適用爭議，陸續提交最高法院大法庭並作出三則裁定，為臺灣毒品施用者處遇圖像定調。本文將深入裁定文字背後的推理邏輯，在指出毒品法制於司法解釋中的柔軟政治性格之後，分析再犯認定與處遇手段、處遇雙軌制及等同性意義、檢察官與法官機關分工的法理發展，再從刑事政策角度檢討放寬觀察勒戒適用後的運作情形。接著將上述分析置入檢討成癮醫學與刑事司法結合模式的脈絡，指認結合模式的侷限，並從解釋學的角度對於制度提出反思與建議。

July 15, 2020 saw the implementation of the new Statute for Narcotics Hazard Control Law, which caused controversy in the application of judicial practice, and submitted to the Great Panel for three adjudications decided the contemporary picture of addiction treatment in Taiwan. This paper will analyze the reasoning logic behind the ruling text and point out the political character of the narcotics legal system in judicial interpretation, especially on criteria of relapse and treatment method, dual track in treatment and assignment responsibility between judges and prosecutors. From the perspective of criminal policy, this article reviews the application of Observation and Rehabilitation after the Great Panel adjudications. Then put the above analysis into the context of the review of the combined model of addiction medicine and criminal justice, identify the limitations of the combined model and taking the critical review above into hermeneutics for the institutional reflection and suggestion.