| 英文摘要 |
Since the emergence of the“Nothing Works”thesis in the 1970s, U.S. penal policy shifted from rehabilitation to punitive approaches, resulting in mass incarceration, fiscal burdens, and systemic injustice. The 2008 financial crisis and the landmark Brown v. Plata decision prompted a critical reevaluation of incarceration-centered policies. Driven by evidence-based research, declining crime rates, and bipartisan support, reforms such as the Second Chance Act and the First Step Act have promoted risk governance and reintegration through the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model and translational criminology.
This article reviews relevant literature and provides the following key findings: The U.S. experience demonstrates that emotional, populist-driven, tough-on-crime policies not only fail to effectively deter crime but also lead to an“addictive incarceration”phenomenon, resulting in long-term negative consequences such as social injustice, high recidivism rates among former inmates, and fiscal burdens on the state. Conversely, evidence-based reforms (such as the RNR model and translational criminology) can effectively reduce recidivism and enhance the legitimacy of punishment.
Furthermore, this article synthesizes the background, practices, and theoretical developments of U.S. penal policy transformation and reflects on its implications for Taiwan as Taiwan is currently facing similar challenges, including pressure from a growing incarcerated population, bottlenecks in resource allocation, and a sharp increase in elderly inmates. Therefore, this article argues that Taiwan should learn from the American experience and promote correctional policy reforms that balance human rights and empirical evidence. Specifically, it should establish evidence-based treatment mechanisms, promote community reentry programs, build a risk-need assessment system, and address the needs of elderly inmates. This will effectively reduce recidivism and achieve a modern transformation of penal governance. |
