| 英文摘要 |
In terms of protecting human rights, J.Y. Interpretation No. 799, which deals with the constitutionality of Taiwan’s Sexual Violent Predator (SVP) Laws, is a landmark case in terms of the development in the Taiwan’s constitutional jurisprudence. However, the failure of the case lies in not being able to address the issue of constitutional grounds to detain SVPs in two significant ways. Firstly, unlike invoking substantive due process by the US Supreme Court or referring to Article 5 of the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court only used the theory of legal certainty to review Taiwan’s SVP laws, failing to establish a general standard to review the basis of detaining a non-criminal such as SVPs. Secondly, regarding the grounds for detaining an SVP, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court accepted that only if an SVP is dangerous, he or she could be detained for an indefinite confinement. In other words, in Taiwan, although an SVP is dangerous but without the existence of mental abnormality or mental disorder, which is required by the jurisprudence developed by the US Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, any SVP still faces the possibility of civil commitment under Taiwan’s law. |
