「生命政治」視角下的刑事政策─ ─ 以反恐刑事司法「論述」為楔子

系所名稱：法律學研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：100年
指導教授：李茂生
「911」之後，美國開始其反恐戰爭，因而導致其刑事司法上嚴罰化、入罪前置化、刑事被告程序權剝奪等現象。此一反恐刑事司法背後的論述，實際上仍立於英美刑事政策論述的脈絡中，刑事政策背後「他者化」的社會意義並未改變，僅是對於嚴重犯罪類型的回應中，以「風險」作為論述主線的刑事政策展演出對高風險類型犯罪的高度控制策略。無論是在社會變遷的樣貌、刑事政策的發展以及立法走向都與美國相似的我國，上開的論述脈絡也同樣地呈現於台灣，我國《性侵害犯罪防治法》與相關法規中，無論是實體或程序面向對性侵害刑事被告的處遇，都可以同樣的論述主線與脈絡加以解釋。在這之中可窺見的是對犯罪人與犯罪類型的區分，以及對應於不同被告而產生不同嚴厲程度的處遇，與犯罪學、刑事政策論述與刑事司法間互為影響的關係。此種論述與實踐的相互關係及對於犯罪人的處遇，可理解為Michel Foucault與Giorgio Agamben思想中，對於生命進行的「治理」。無論是Foucault以異質性要素交互的網絡關係加以理解的生命權力，或是Agamben對裸命棄置的主權權力，都呈現出治理與生命間的關係。本文進行兩種治理論述的比較後，選擇以Foucault的生命權力觀點作為分析視角。本文認為對於犯罪人形象與風險論述的結合，正是Foucault的Dispositif概念中的論述要素，而刑事司法的實踐面向則作為非論述要素，為了回應不同風險程度的犯罪類型或代表不同程度危險源的犯罪人，這些要素會策略性地於刑事司法終展演出其治理的方式，且在關照生命的論述中，刑事司法的實踐面向會進行對於個體的排除或矯治，於整體面向上則會使犯罪率或風險回到穩定的正常狀態。治理的結果會形塑出理想的個體形象與社會應有的常態秩序樣貌，亦即在治理的運作中，會形塑出刑事司法中「人」的形象。本文的最終也會試圖於刑事司法的運作中，尋找面對一種被形塑的形象，是否存在任何的解放途徑，去反抗此種對於作為個體的人與整體的社會進行形塑的治理機制。

After 9/11, the United States began the War on Terror, resulting in phenomena of more heavy punishments in criminal justice system, pre-incrimination, and deprivation of procedural rights of criminal defendants. The discourse behind such counter-terrorism criminal justice, in fact, still stands in the context of the Anglo-American criminal policy discourse; the social meaning of “othering” behind the criminal policy has not been changed, and it is only, in the response to serious crime type, performing the highly crime-control strategies to the high-risk types of crime by the criminal policy taking “risk” as the main line of discusses. In Taiwan, where the appearance of social change, the development of criminal policy, as well as the legislative trends are similar to the U.S., the said context of discourse likewise is also present here. In Taiwanese Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act and related regulations, whether on substantial or procedural aspect, the treatment of sexual assault crime defendants can beexplained by the same context and main line of discusses. Among these, what can be seen is the discrimination of criminals and crime types, and the treatment in diverse degree of severity corresponding to different defendants, as well as the relationship of mutual influences between the criminology and criminal policy discourse, and the criminal justice.The mutual relationship of such discourse and practice and the treatment of criminals can be interpreted as the "governance" of life in the thought of Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben. Both Foucault's understanding of the power of life through the interactive network relationship of the heterogeneous elements and Agamben’s the sovereign power over the abandonment of bare life show therelationship between governance and life. This article compares the two governance discourses, and chooses Foucault's viewpoint of the power of life as the perspective of analysis. This article considers that the combination of the image of the criminal and risk discourse is just the element of discourse in Foucault’s Dispositif concept, while the aspect of criminal justice practice is regarded as a non-discourse element. In order to respond to crime types in different levels of risk and criminals standing for different degree of risk source, these elements will strategically perform their way of governance in the criminal justice, and in the discourse of life concern, the practical aspect of the criminal justice will carry out the exclusion or correction of individuals, and it will lead the crime rate or risk go back to a stable, normal state on an overall aspect. The consequence of governance will shape the ideal image of individuals and that normal order state the society ought to be, that is, within the operation of governance, it will shape the image of “human” in criminal justice. This article will eventually try to seek whether there is any means of liberation when confronting a shaped image in the criminal justice operation, resisting such governance mechanism shaping persons as individuals and the whole society.