監護處分中之安置與矯治──以德國法制為借鏡

Placement and Correction under the Custodial Disposition -In Light of the German Legal System

國家基於憲法上的保護義務而一方面必須維護公眾的安全，另一方面也必須保護精神障礙觸法者的自由基本權。在精神障礙觸法者不成立犯罪的情況下，因為其受剝奪自由的監護處分在本質上就屬於公法上的特別犧牲，所以必須嚴格檢驗處分的手段與目的是否符合比例原則之要求。長久以來，德國對於精神障礙觸法者的安置與矯治規定受到德國聯邦憲法法院的嚴格檢驗。在這樣的背景下，德國法制除了對於安置機構的環境有最低限度的要求之外，矯治的內容也必須以自由和治療為導向，同時也注重轉銜機制的運作，以期達到讓精神障礙觸法者順利復歸於社會的目標。
相較之下，雖然我國於2022年初對監護處分制度做了大幅且重要的修正，不過部分號稱參考德國法制的修正內容在實際上仍未臻明確。例如，延長安置期間的規定僅採取時間意義上的階段性評估，而未明文要求或限定在不同階段所須達到的條件為何，因此新法規定恐怕有過度干預自由基本權之虞。另外，基於保安處分目的之思考以及鑑於我國目前對於安置與矯治的相關規範仍不完整，因此在立法政策上是否真要仿效德國現制而採取無限期延長安置的制度，實有待商榷。儘管如此，保安處分執行法在多元處遇的立法方面，仍值得肯定。

On the basis of the constitutional obligation of protection, the State must preserve the security of the public on the one hand and the fundamental right to liberty of the mentally disabled offender on the other hand. Under the circumstance that the offence committed by the mentally disabled offender does not constitute a crime, the deprivation of liberty under the custodial disposition is essentially a special sacrifice under public law and it is necessary to rigorously test whether the means and purposes of this rehabilitative measure meets the requirements of the principle of proportionality. For a long period, the laws and regulations in Germany governing the placement and correction of offender with mental disorders have been rigorously tested by the German Federal Constitutional Court. Against this backdrop, as required by the applicable German laws and regulations, in addition to the minimum requirements on the environment of the correctional institution, the content of corrections must also be oriented to release and treatment, and should focus on the operation of the transition mechanism, so that the social rehabilitation of mentally disabled offender could be achieved smoothly.
In contrast, although substantial and crucial amendments have been made to the mechanism of custodial disposition in Taiwan in early 2022, some amendments, that allegedly use the German laws and regulations for reference, are still ambiguous. For example, the provisions concerning the extension of the placement period only adopt a phased assessment in the sense of time, but does not explicitly require or specify the conditions to be met at different stages. Hence, the new rules of Taiwan may trigger the risk of excessive interference with the fundamental right to liberty. In addition, considering the purposes of rehabilitative measures and in view of the fact that the relevant provisions for placement and correction are still incomplete, it is debatable whether the legislative policy really should follow the current German system and adopt a system of unlimited placement extension. Nevertheless, the positive implication of the Rehabilitative Disposition Execution Act in terms of legislation on multiple treatment approaches should be recognized.