摘要
刑罰通常被認為應具有應報、威嚇、教化及復歸社會等功能。法官在個案刑罰裁量時則被期待必須公正、公平及妥適。從司法統計可知，經法院判處施用毒品罪確定者，往往較其他經判刑處定之犯罪類型為高的再累犯率。本研究藉由隨機抽樣的484位曾經法院裁定送觀察勒戒之施用毒品者之受觀察勒戒基本資料及前科紀錄，以統計方法，分析再犯與未再犯罪者之差異因素、影響觀察、勒戒或強制戒治執行期間長短之因素，該執行期間長短與再犯施用毒品與否間之關係，以及樣本中有再因犯施用毒品並受徒刑宣告者，所受宣告刑期長短與再次施用毒品與否間之關係。另，法官對於施用毒品者所科處刑度高低，考量哪些因素，始符合妥適量刑之期待？又對施用毒品者所科處刑罰，是否足以減低施用毒品者再犯？ 本實證研究結果發現：受觀察勒戒或強制戒治人未再犯、再犯、三犯施用毒品符合「三三比例」法則。司法實務上，法官對於施用一、二級毒品罪之刑度多是從法定最低刑度量起，而對於女性犯施用毒品罪刑度輕於男性，對於三犯施用毒品罪之刑度多高於再犯者。青年期即開始施用毒品者，再犯、三犯率均高於壯年期與中年期才開始施用者。施用一級毒品、有戒斷症狀、使用針筒者再犯率較高。而由於對施用毒品之刑罰執行不具迅速性，難以發揮威嚇效果。因施用毒品而入勒戒處所對女性受勒戒人的威嚇效果較大。但無論入勒戒處所與否，再犯率無顯著差異。 目前我國刑事訴訟制度，未有事前調查制度，法官僅能於量刑辯論程序時，詳細調查詢問個案之社會及家庭支持系統之實際狀況，盡可能找出最妥適中的刑罰，評估擇定非監禁刑罰（如易科罰金、緩刑、或附條件緩刑等）或監禁刑罰，及監禁刑罰的適當長度。否則，在刑罰的效果不彰且弱於觀察勒戒或強制戒治等保安處分效果之情形下，經濟弱勢者，可能為籌措金錢以易科罰金，而更陷於經濟困境，無助於脫離原來生活困境，而無法易科罰金者，入監服刑後，在矯治機構所接觸同為施用毒品者之機率非小，可想見刑罰並無助於個案出監後脫離施用毒品環境，亦無助於建立新的社會網絡，此係與刑罰所欲追求的社會復歸目的背道而馳。 本研究認為司法院所建置的量刑資訊系統，對於施用毒品罪類型而言，難以達到妥適量刑之功效。建議有關施用毒品者的基本資料之調查及量刑程序宜更精細嚴謹；於入勒戒或戒治處所留存之基本資料應完整保存並建立資料庫，以便提供量刑參考。且刑罰既然對嚇阻施用毒品再犯之效果不大，法官對施用毒品者量刑時，建議視之為病患。
並列摘要
Penalty is usually regarded as having the function of retribution, deterrence, indoctrination, and reintegrated to the society. Judges are expected to be fair, equitable and appropriate when they sentence drug users. From Justice Statistics, we realize the recidivism of the drug offenders is higher than other types of offenders. Therefore, the effect of the punishment on the drug users is in question. The present study randomly collected 484 drug abusers who were once sentenced to the drug rehabilitation and treatment center. This study categorised them into two groupsm recidivism and non-recidivism,, and examined their duration of treatments , the prison declarations, and sentences. The main purposes for this study are to identify factors which appropriate sentences should be considered for re-convicted drug abusers. The results indicate that e 30 percent of the first time offenders would stop using drugs after their treatment and another 30 percent of the second time offenders would stop after the second treatment – a rule of "30e-30”. Judges tend to sentence those 1st, 2nd class drug abusers for minimum sentences and shorter for female and second time offenders..The recidivism of those who began to use drugs in adolescence is higher than those began in adulthood or middle age. The recidivism is also higher to those first-class drug abusers with withdrawal symptoms and syringe abusers. Since the implementation of penalties is not prompt, the penalty is difficult to have deterrent effect. The deterrent effect on drug abusing is obviously stronger on female offenders under treatment , but there is no significant effect on recidivists. Our criminal litigation system does not have prior social investigations for drug offenders. Judges can only make better sentence decisions when they have more knowldege on the offderders’ social and family support. To evaluate whether or not to implement non-imprisonment or imprisonment sentences (eg commuted to a fine, probation, or conditional probation, etc.) , and decide the appropriate length of imprisonment, the courts might need more information on the offenders. For example, judges might give unuseful fines to economic disadvantage offenders who can’t pay for it. The unafforadable fines eventually would send all these offenders in prisons. Under this circumstance, it is without help for the purposes of non- imprisonment sentence. The sentencing guidelines established by Judicial Yuan is hard for judges to implement , especially when it comes to sentence drug abusers. Without proper social investigations and prior treatment information on the offenders, the sentence procedures can’t be executed in a delicated measure. . Without a proper method to sentence these drug offenders, the effect of punishment is limited. This study argues that if punishment has no deterrent effect on drug offenders, a public policy of treating them as addictive patients might be worth of considering in the near future. .