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

“Diversification”of Criminal Custody? The Challenges of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to Criminal Custody

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，則以美國、英國、德國與日本為比較國，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。然受限於篇幅，本文僅就英國、德國與日本之情狀進行呈現。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。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。

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 States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. It aims to observe the context and changes of the criminal custody in the U.S, U.K., Germany and Japan before and after the ratification of the CRPD. Owing to space constraints, the thesis only presents the situation in the UK, Germany and Japan. 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. 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.