毒品多元處遇政策下的法律評價──具體求刑起訴書的實證分析

Legal Assessment of Multimodal Drug Treatment Policy: An Empirical Analysis on Indictments with an Imprisonment Sentence

本研究以法學實證研究方法（Empirical Legal Research）進行，利用檢察官具體求刑之起訴書作為分析文本，並將研究對象鎖定在施用一級毒品的行為人，且因為起訴書包含許多客觀可辨的犯罪資訊，充沛的資訊足供研究團隊觀察；另因一級毒品的成癮性、取得難度、戒治難度均高，在多元處遇制度早已上路的現況下，觀察反覆施用者與案情的特徵，亦不失為評估多元處遇成效的理想指標。研究成果發現，這類案件中的行為人以男性為大宗，占87.7％，且施用時年齡落在30歲至40歲的青壯年區間，占40.9％，施用場所則偏向在隱密性與控制力較強的自宅為多，占44.2％；在施用方式上則多採針筒注射，比例為43.7％，有相當比例的行為人在起訴範圍內多有混用其他毒品的傾向，占40.9％；而除本案外有其他刑事犯罪紀錄者也為多數，占80.4％；累犯者亦達78.3％之比例。透過羅吉斯迴歸分析亦可發現，部分縣市所屬管轄檢察官對於求刑之刑度有其偏好，例如施用行為地在南投縣時，相較於其他縣市，檢察官傾向求處1年以上的有期徒刑（p -value＜0.001, OR＝13.2, 95％ C.I.＝ 6.17－28.1）；但行為地若在臺南市時，檢察官的求刑趨勢則有截然不同的表現（p -value＜0.05, OR＝0.49, 95％ C.I.＝0.24－0.97）。最後，本研究亦發現，在起訴範圍內施用毒品的次數與是否曾犯施用毒品罪，均會影響檢察官具體求刑之刑度，且經羅吉斯迴歸檢驗後仍呈現統計上的顯著相關；施用次數高於1 次者，檢察官傾向給予較高的求刑刑度（p -value＜0.001, OR＝9.24, 95％ C.I.＝3.97－21.49）；曾犯施用毒品罪者，檢察官亦有較高的機率向法院請求判給較高的刑度（p -value＜0.05, OR＝2.09, 95％ C.I.＝1.08－4.02）。

This study is carried out with the approach of empirical legal research. The indictments asking for a sentence by prosecutors are used as the text for analyses. The study mainly targets at doers using Class 1 drugs. The aforementioned research design is based on several reasons. First, the indictments provide sufficient and explicit information of crimes from an objective perspective for the research team to probe. Furthermore, Class 1 drugs characterize higher levels of addiction as well as difficulty to obtain and rehabilitate. While the multimodal treatment system has been put into practice for some time, the characteristics observed from repeated drug users and these legal cases may be ideal indicators for assessing the effectiveness of multimodal treatment. The findings of the study revealed that males accounted for 87.7% of the doers in such cases. Meanwhile, 40.9% of them used drugs when they were young adults, aged from 30 to 40. Next, 44.2% of the users tended to use drugs at home because it’s a place with better privacy and easy to control. Injection syringe was a more popular way that 43.7% of the drug users chose. In addition, a considerable percentage at 40.9% of drug users had a tendency for mixed drug use based on the indictments being surveyed. Among the Class 1 drug users covered in this study, 80.4% had been recorded for committing other criminal offenses while 78.3% were recidivists. The logistic regression analysis also demonstrated preferences that some prosecutors in certain counties or cities had in terms of punishment. For example, in comparison with other counties or cities, Nantou County’s prosecutors tended to ask for a sentence of at least 1 year in prison over drug use ( p-value<0.001, OR=13.2, 95% C.I.= 6.17-28.1 ). However, Tainan City’s prosecutors asked for a sentence in a totally different manner ( p-value<0.05, OR=0.49, 95% C.I.=0.24-0.97 ). Finally, the findings of this study also revealed that times and history of drug use would affect how prosecutors asked for an imprisonment sentence. The logistic regression proved that such results were statistically significantly correlated. Prosecutors had the tendency to ask for a higher degree of punishment to users who had drugs more than one time ( p-value<0.001, OR=9.24, 95% C.I.=3.97-21.49 ). In addition, it is more likely for prosecutors to ask the court for a higher degree of punishment in the cases where offenders had committed a drug use crime before ( p-value<0.05, OR=2.09, 95% C.I.=1.08-4.02 ).