多元複合的假釋制度──美國假釋制度的考察與反思

Toward a“Compound”Approach: A Critical Review of the Parole System in the United State

在嚴罰化趨勢及忠實量刑運動下，美國各州於一九七○年代減少甚至廢除裁量假釋並廣泛運用法定假釋；隨著監獄超收加劇、法定假釋難以充分發揮功能等問題，近年再度興起重塑裁量假釋的聲浪。臺灣在一九九○年代後期起，裁量假釋形式要件日益嚴格、實質審查標準緊縮且監獄超收嚴重，影響受刑人處遇與復歸，同樣面臨如何活化假釋制度的問題，法定假釋成為倡議的政策選項。美國與臺灣在不同發展脈絡的表象下，以看似衝突的方案各為號召，實際上有著共同關心。本文從美國假釋制度的理念與制度考察，反思臺灣制度的發展，主張裁量假釋與法定假釋並非互斥的政策選項。調整嚴格的假釋形式要件，將法定假釋與裁量假釋分別適用在不同對象，組成多元複合的假釋制度，確保受刑人能夠假釋並獲得監督與支援。此方式將避免不必要的刑罰，充分銜接機構內外處遇，並使矯正政策更為良善。

With the application of discretionary parole abolished or reduced, mandatory parole applies widely in the United State. Following the trend of severe penalties and the truth-in-sentencing movement, there has been a wave of reshaping discretionary parole. Discretionary parole has become more stringent in terms of its formal requirements and its substantive requirements have been tightened in Taiwan, and mandatory parole has been proposed. Under the appearance of different development contexts, the two countries call for conflicting plans on the surface but actually share common concerns.
Reviewing the theories and institutions of the parole system in the United State, reflecting on the development of the parole system in Taiwan, discretionary parole and mandatory parole are not mutually exclusive policy options. By applying mandatory parole and discretionary parole to different objects and adjusting strict parole system from requirements, combine compound parole system to ensure that prisoners can be released on parole and receive supervision and support. In this way, unnecessary penalties will vanish, function the linkage between internal and external treatments of the institution and review the parole system carefully making the correction policy better.