論臺灣監護處分與強制社區治療 —以人身自由之限制為中心

Taipei Medical University Institutional Repository > 人文暨社會科學院 > 醫療暨生物科技法律研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/64968

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://libir.tmu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/64968

题名:	論臺灣監護處分與強制社區治療 —以人身自由之限制為中心 On the Custodial Protection and Mandatory Community Treatment in Taiwan: Focusing on the Restriction of Personal Liberty
作者:	蔡鋒毅 TSAI, FENG–YI
贡献者:	醫療暨生物科技法律研究所碩士班何建志
关键词:	監護處分;精神障礙者;精神衛生法;法官保留;強制社區治療;醫療自主;人身自由 custodial protection;mental disorders;Mental Health Act;prior judicial review;mandatory community treatment;medical decision;personal freedom
日期:	2024-06-28
上传时间:	2025-01-06
摘要:	臺灣於2022年間同時修正監護處分制度及精神衛生法之全文。監護處分作為矯治精神障礙觸法者之手段，但該實質要件在經過2022年修法後仍未有所變動。本文認為目前監護處分制度仍值得檢討之處：一、臺灣監護處分之要件相較於德國寬鬆，以致於精神障礙觸法者易遭受監護處分之宣告而被長期剝奪人身自由，恐有違比例原則；二、目前臺灣刑法實務上多以「刑後監護」為原則，此種做法因精神障礙者對刑度感受度低落，故而不利達成刑罰之再社會化目的；三、修法後之監護處分期限一再延長，除使人民缺乏預見可能性外，亦將過度干預人民基本權利。精神衛生法中對於嚴重病人施以強制社區治療係干預非刑事犯罪者的基本人權（即為人身自由），我國憲法第8條及司法院大法官已透過相關解釋充分揭示關於人民身體自由限制的各項要件。本文認為目前精神衛生法仍值得檢討之處：一、嚴重病人若無傷害他人之虞，則國家不需施以強制力介入治療；二、精神衛生法條文中並未明示分工範圍、責任歸屬等，社區上醫療資源與照護服務系統間，並無一貫性，可能導致精神疾病患者無法受到完善的安置；三、精神衛生法第57條第2項規定之「必要時」太過寬鬆，有過度侵害人權之可能，建議可以將情狀限於有出現傷害他人或自己之緊急情況。 In 2022, Taiwan simultaneously amended the entire Custodial Protection and the Mental Health Act. Custodial protection serve as a means to correct offenders with mental disorders, but the substantial requirements for such measures remained unchanged after the 2022 amendments. This article argues that the current custodial protection still warrants review: 1.The requirements for custodial protection in Taiwan are more lenient compared to Germany, making it easier for offenders with mental disorders to be subjected to such measures and consequently, long-term deprivation of personal liberty, potentially violating the principle of proportionality. 2.In current Taiwanese criminal law practice, "post-penal custodial " is often the principle. This approach is disadvantageous in achieving the goal of resocialization of punishment, as individuals with mental disorders have a lower sensitivity to the severity of penalties. 3.The extended duration of custodial protection following the amendments not only reduces foreseeability for the public but also excessively interferes with fundamental human rights. The imposition of compulsory community treatment on severely ill patients under the Mental Health Act interferes with the basic human rights (i.e., personal freedom) of non-criminal individuals. Article 8 of the Taiwanese Constitution and relevant interpretations by the Justices of the Constitutional Court have fully elucidated the requirements for restricting personal freedom. This article believes that the current Mental Health Act still warrants review: 1.If severely ill patients do not pose a risk of harming others, the state should not intervene compulsorily in their treatment. 2.The provisions of the Mental Health Act do not clearly delineate the scope of division of labor and responsibility, leading to inconsistency in the allocation of medical resources and care services in the community, potentially resulting in inadequate placement of mental illness patients. 3.The term "when necessary" in Article 57, Paragraph 2 of the Mental Health Act is too vague, posing a risk of excessive infringement on human rights. It is recommended to limit the circumstances to emergency situations where there is a risk of harm to others or oneself.
描述:	碩士指導教授：何建志口試委員：賈文宇口試委員：梁志鳴口試委員：何建志
附注:	論文公開日期：2024-07-09
数据类型:	thesis
显示于类别:	[醫療暨生物科技法律研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	159	检视/开启

在TMUIR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

TAIR相关文章

数据加载中.....