科技設備監控的政策發展──美國法制的借鑑

The Policy Development of Technical Equipment Monitoring−Lessons from the U.S. Legal System

本文探討美國刑事司法系統中電子監控（electronic monitoring，EM）的發展歷程、現況及其對於我國科技設備監控制度的啟示。美國自1980年代開始應用電子監控，作為替代羈押及監禁的措施，隨著技術發展，其應用範圍持續擴大，成為刑事司法制度的重要工具。透過Pew Research Center（2016）與Vera Institute of Justice（2024）發布的報告，本文分析2005年至2021年間美國電子監控的成長趨勢及技術演進，並整理支持與反對電子監控的主要論點。支持者認為電子監控可降低羈押率、減少政府支出，並有助於社會復歸；反對者則指出其可能加劇種族與經濟不平等，甚至導致監控範圍的過度擴張。美國的實證研究亦顯示，電子監控對於降低再犯率與提升出庭率的效果有限。本文最後探討美國法制對於我國的政策啟示，指出兩國在科技設備監控的用途設定存在著基本差異，而在尚缺乏本土實證研究的現況下，應優先進行系統性的實證數據蒐集與分析，以確保政策制定的科學性與正當性。

This study explores the development and implications of electronic monitoring (EM) in the U.S. criminal justice system for Taiwan’s technical equipment monitoring policies. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has adopted electronic monitoring as an alternative to pretrial detention and incarceration. With technological advancements, its application has expanded significantly, making it an essential tool in the criminal justice system. Based on reports published by the Pew Research Center (2016) and the Vera Institute of Justice (2024), this study analyzes the growth trends and technological evolution of electronic monitoring in the U.S. from 2005 to 2021, while also summarizing key arguments for and against its use. Proponents argue that electronic monitoring reduces detention rates, lowers government expenses, and facilitates social reintegration. Opponents, however, contend that it exacerbates racial and economic inequalities and leads to excessive surveillance. Empirical research in the U.S. further suggests that electronic monitoring has limited effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving court appearance rates. Finally, this study discusses the implications of the U.S. legal framework for Taiwan, highlighting fundamental differences in the purposes of technical equipment monitoring in both countries. Given the lack of local empirical research, this study emphasizes the necessity of systematically collecting and analyzing empirical data to ensure the scientific validity and legitimacy of policymaking.