論施用毒品者處遇的病犯體制：大法庭與刑事政策相互形塑的啟示與檢討

Patient-Offender System of Drug User: The Implications and Review of the Mutual Shaping of Grand Chambers and Criminal Policy

首先，本文細譯2020年毒品危害防制條例修法後5則刑事大法庭論述，在解釋學與刑事政策之間，透過制度機能、裁定文字、實證數據，指出刑事政策如何影響大法庭、大法庭又如何影響刑事政策，從描繪大法庭與刑事政策相互形塑的過程，辨明解釋的推理基礎、政策的規劃意義。其次，以大法庭揭櫫的「交錯刑事處分」、「浮動刑事責任」2面向探討施用毒品者處遇的法理架構，指出刑事處分間失衡關係、刑事處分內混合關係的課題，以及施用毒品罪責判斷、臨床責任概念運用的挑戰，批評大法庭的刑事政策說理。接著，進入施用毒品者處遇的運作發展，探究「適用與排除」、「分流與配對」的機制，描述處遇標準如何塑造處遇對象而產生社會排除；指出提升分流配對機制的限制及其限制根源，檢視施用毒品者處遇「以犯罪逮捕作為對待基礎」的制度困境。最後，主張應重新商榷刑事司法提供治療的意義，應關注交纏於治療的懲罰樣態、懲罰所施加的對象與意義，以及污名帶來的復元阻礙。觀察大法庭的制度運作機制，將有助於理解法律解釋與刑事政策之間的關係，以探索施用毒品者處遇的制度內涵、前提預設，提出更適切的法律解釋與政策設計，並有益於思索刑事司法功能的變遷。

Firstly, this article provides a detailed analysis of five criminal grand chamber discourses following the 2020 amendment to the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. It examines the interplay between legal interpretation and criminal policy through institutional functions, ruling texts, and empirical data. The study illustrates how criminal policy influences the grand chamber and how the grand chamber, in turn, shapes criminal policy. By delineating this mutual shaping process, the article elucidates the reasoning basis for interpretation and the significance of policy planning. Secondly, the article explores the legal framework for the treatment of drug users through two dimensions propounded by the grand chamber: ''intersecting criminal dispositions'' and ''floating criminal responsibility.'' It highlights issues such as the imbalance between criminal dispositions, the mixed relationships within criminal dispositions, and challenges in determining culpability for drug use and applying clinical responsibility concepts. The article critically examines the grand chamber's criminal policy reasoning. The study then delves into the operational development of drug user treatment, investigating mechanisms of ''application and exclusion'' and ''diversion and matching.'' It describes how treatment standards shape the treatment subjects, potentially leading to social exclusion. The article identifies limitations in enhancing diversion and matching mechanisms and their root causes, examining the institutional predicament of basing drug user treatment on ''criminal arrest as the foundation for intervention.'' Finally, the article argues for a reconsideration of the meaning of treatment provided by the criminal justice system. It emphasizes the need to focus on the punitive aspects intertwined with treatment, the subjects and implications of punishment, and the obstacles to recovery posed by stigma. By observing the institutional operating mechanisms of the grand chamber, this study contributes to understanding the relationship between legal interpretation and criminal policy. It explores the institutional content and underlying assumptions of drug user treatment, proposing more appropriate legal interpretations and policy designs. This approach is beneficial for contemplating the evolving functions of the criminal justice system.