第二級毒品施用者之司法戒治成本比較研究──以臺灣臺北地方檢察署及法務部矯正署新店戒治所為例

Comparative Research on Costs of Schedule 2 Drug Users Receiving Judicial Rehabilitation–A Survey of the Cases Taken by Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office and Sindian Drug Abuser Treatment Center, Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice

臺灣司法體系對第一、二級毒品施用者除監禁之刑罰外，尚有由檢察官作成被告至醫院接受為期2年的緩起訴附命戒癮治療處分，以及聲請核發令其入勒戒處所接受平均35日觀察勒戒（後續250日的觀察勒戒／強制戒治）等2種司法戒治模式，為使政府財政資金的使用達到經濟運用，進行成本分析研究可作為刑事政策訂定時之重要參考。
本研究分別調查司法戒治執行機關包含臺灣臺北地方檢察署、臺北市立聯合醫院松德院區、法務部矯正署新店戒治所計11名執行人員，藉由訪談執行人員及提供資料用以計算執行機關成本；再計算受司法戒治者因司法戒治需付出的相關成本，以及之間接成本；最後以2015年中華民國刑案統計，警察機關受理各類刑案紀錄表所載各類犯罪的平均財產損失金額（元／件），作為社會成本計算可量化為貨幣的成本量。
研究發現，檢察官將第二級毒品施用者起訴或不起訴處分所需執行機關成本新臺幣（以下同）601.1元；每位受司法戒治者的相關成本，計有緩起訴組履行完成者（1年8月）的執行機關成本3萬6,827.6元及個人成本3萬1,400元、履行未完成者（10月）的執行機關成本2萬9,090.2元及個人成本11萬4,500元；在戒治所組觀察勒戒出所者（35日）的執行機關成本1萬9,581.5元及個人成本6萬8,284.4元、強制戒治第1次停戒通過出所者（250日）的執行機關成本12萬8,900.6元及個人成本48萬337.8元、強制戒治第2次停戒通過出所者（285日）執行機關成本147,421.7元及個人成本54萬8,039.6元；至於再犯罪之社會成本，係採計每件刑案致他人財產損失金額，計有一般竊盜3萬5,339元、強盜／搶奪／恐嚇取財等暴力犯罪5萬4,348元、詐欺等財產性犯罪7萬6,558元。本研究建議在針對施用毒品者以司法戒治分流處遇篩選工具進行評估，並有限度容許藥癮者在戒癮過程仍有復發可能性，配合發展多元化社區戒癮處遇方案，以節省司法戒治之執行機關及個人成本，並有效提高司法戒治之經濟效益。

In accordance with Taiwan’s judicial system, Schedule 1 and 2 drug users can be sentenced to imprisonment. Apart from the above measure, another two options for judicial rehabilitation can be made. First, prosecutors can make a decision of two-year deferred prosecution with the condition that offenders have to complete addiction treatment in a hospital. Second, a prosecutor can petition to issue an order that an offender has to stay and receive observation and rehabilitation in a rehabilitation center for an average of thirty-five days (followed by observation and rehabilitation / compulsory rehabilitation for 250 days). For the purpose of achieving an effective and economical use of governmental funds, cost analysis research can serve as an important reference for the future design of criminal justice policy.
In this study, a survey of the enforcement authorities or organizations for judicial rehabilitation has been made. These included Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office, Taipei City Hospital Songde Branch as well as Sindian Drug Abuser Treatment Center, Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice. A total of 11 executive staff were interviewed. The costs in relation to the enforcement authorities were calculated based on the data provided by the interviewees. Next, the costs spent on the offenders receiving judicial rehabilitation and indirect costs in this regard were computed. And then, by referring to the 2015 statistics of the criminal offenses in the Republic of China, the average amount of property loss (NTD/offense) of all kinds of criminal offenses received and recorded by the police authorities was used to calculate social cost that could be quantized into an amount of monetary cost.
The findings of this study are as follows. The cost by enforcement units being spent on the procedures to prosecute or non-prosecute a Schedule 2 drug user was NTD 601.1. The costs spent on each drug user receiving judicial rehabilitation were: for the group of drug users receiving deferred prosecution and completing rehabilitation (1 year and 8 months), NTD 36,827.6 by enforcement unit and NTD 31,400 by individual; and for the group of drug users failing to complete rehabilitation (10 months), NTD 29,090.2 by enforcement unit and NTD 68,284.4 by individual. In addition, for the group of drug users receiving observation and rehabilitation at an abuser treatment center and then being discharged (35 days), the costs were NTD 19,581.5 by enforcement unit and NTD 68,284.4 by individual; for the group of drug users receiving compulsory rehabilitation and being discharged after the first evaluation showing no signs of relapse to drug use (250 days), the costs were NTD 128,900.6 by enforcement unit and NTD 48,337.8 by individual; and for the group of drug users receiving compulsory rehabilitation and being discharged after the second evaluation showing no signs of relapse to drug use (285 days), the costs were NTD 147,421.7 by enforcement unit and NTD 548,039.6 by individual. As to the social cost arising from recidivism, the figures were based on the property loss caused by each criminal case. These included NTD 35,339 by larceny, NTD 54,348 by violent crimes such as robbery/abrupt taking/intimidation, and NTD 76,558 by property-related fraudulence. It is suggested that evaluations be made based on risk and needs triage for drug users receiving judicial rehabilitation. Meanwhile, the possibilities of addiction relapse should be flexibly taken into consideration in the process of addiction treatment. Bearing the above suggestions and by developing multiple community addiction treatment measures, the costs by enforcement units and individuals in terms of judicial rehabilitation can be reduced so as to effectively improve the economic benefits for judicial rehabilitation.