被忽視之非刑事合憲拘禁要件──評釋字第799號解釋

An Essential Issue Neglected by the J.Y. Interpretation No. 799–Constitutional Grounds for Detaining Non-Criminals

釋字第799號係對人權保障具重要貢獻之解釋，但可惜的是，本號解釋似忽略強制治療之合憲要件問題。如與美國最高法院以及歐洲人權法院見解相較，本號解釋有關強制治療要件之忽略，恐在於以下兩個層次：一是對非刑事拘禁要件之合憲性判斷，僅從法律明確性原則切入，似忽視建構非刑事拘禁要件一般抽象合憲判準之重要性；二是在強制治療具體要件上，僅以被拘禁者危險性作為拘禁事由，恐忽視其他諸如精神異常、精神障礙，甚至是欠缺相當行為控制力等要素，作為拘禁判準之必要性；再者，或許最為重要者，如以該兩法院之判準作為釋憲依據，我國實證法之強制治療要件規定，恐有違憲之虞。

In terms of protecting human rights, J.Y. Interpretation No. 799, which deals with the constitutionality of Taiwan’s Sexual Violent Predator (SVP) Laws, is a landmark case in terms of the development in the Taiwan’s constitutional jurisprudence. However, the failure of the case lies in not being able to address the issue of constitutional grounds to detain SVPs in two significant ways. Firstly, unlike invoking substantive due process by the US Supreme Court or referring to Article 5 of the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court only used the theory of legal certainty to review Taiwan’s SVP laws, failing to establish a general standard to review the basis of detaining a non-criminal such as SVPs. Secondly, regarding the grounds for detaining an SVP, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court accepted that only if an SVP is dangerous, he or she could be detained for an indefinite confinement. In other words, in Taiwan, although an SVP is dangerous but without the existence of mental abnormality or mental disorder, which is required by the jurisprudence developed by the US Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, any SVP still faces the possibility of civil commitment under Taiwan’s law.