以前科限制就業制度之檢討

A Review of the Disqualification System Based on Criminal Records

楊冀華(Chi-Hua Yang)

《犯罪與刑事司法研究》 11期 (2008/10) Pp. 63-98

https://doi.org/10.29861/CCJI.200810.0003

摘要

我國法令中就業限制(disqualification)之規定，剝奪更生人就業權益至鉅，惟規範之體系紊亂，有通盤檢討、整合之必要。應嚴格界定就業限制並非補充性之刑罰，而係行政的風險預防措施(civil risk-prevention measures)，必須係容易受侵害或濫用(sensitive to abuse)之職業或活動，且被告或受刑人犯罪前科紀錄所載之犯罪類型具有高再、累犯率，對於該職業或活動具高度危險性，始得剝奪其從事該項職業或活動之資格。我國現行法令中就業限制條文之結構，可分爲前科罪名、宣告刑之種類、執行情形及列管期間四部分。爲兼顧保障更生人工作權益與預防再、累犯之風險，有必要先行檢討、統合現行法令中就業限制之規定。整合方式如后：（一）就業限制規定與憲法上工作權之限制有關，宜統一由母法中規定。（二）就業限制條文之結構，必須涵蓋前科罪名、宣告刑之種類、執行情形及列管期間四部分，以示明確。條文可抽象化爲：「曾犯○○○（特定罪名）,經宣告有期徒刑（宣告刑之種類）確定，尚未執行完畢，或執行完畢、緩刑期滿或赦免後（執行情形）尚未逾○○○年（列管期間）者。」（三）不宜有無前科罪名限制與終身就業限制之規定。就業限制之規範目的既在於預防再、累犯之風險，首應瞭解在我國司法實務上何種犯罪類型之再、累犯率較高。本論文建議執法機關(law enforcement agencies)、教育事業(educational agencies)、醫療保健事業(health care services agencies)、育幼養老事業(child and elder care agencies)、財經機構(financial institutions)、運輸業(transportation agencies)及專門職業人員(professional agencies)，基於職業之特殊性、敏感性，有必要限制具有特定前科之更生人投入該就業市場。僱用人欲查詢受僱人或求職者之前科紀錄，如符合一定要件，似可依據電腦處理個人資料保護法第8條但書第1款、第4款、第6款或第9款之規定，申請查詢該受僱人或求職者前科紀錄。申請查詢時，只能查詢該受僱人或求職者之特定前科資料，且檢索結果不顯示超過列管期間之前科資料。上述原則宜規定於電腦處理個人資料保護法中，俾資承辦人員有所遵循。

關鍵字

前科 ； 更生保護 ； 就業限制

並列摘要

Arguably, the regulations governing ”disqualification” for jobs in Taiwan has badly affected the employability of ex-offenders. There are neither consistent standards nor appropriate regulatory systems of disqualifications. It is necessary for lawmakers to review and integrate existing regulations comprehensively. Disqualification needs to be understood not as a supplementary penalty, but a civil risk-prevention measure. The disqualification for jobs or activities should only be regulated when the jobs are sensitive to abuse, where there are high recidivism rates among offenders, or the jobs or activities are highly vulnerable.
This study argues that the scheme of the regulations related to the disqualification of jobs can be divided into four parts: First of all, the accusations of prior criminal records; secondly, the sorts of adjudicated penalties; thirdly, the executed situation, and fourthly, the period under control. In order to protect the rights for employment of the ex-offenders and prevent them from re-commission, it is necessary to review and integrate the current regulations of the disqualification for ex-offenders.
The present study suggests that: First of all, if the regulations of disqualification have relations to the restriction of constitutional rights of employment, it should be regulated by enabling statute uniformly; secondly, the articles related to disqualification should include the accusations of criminal records, the sorts of adjudicated penalties, the executed situation, and the period under control; thirdly, it is not permissible to have regulations that fail to specify the nature of the criminal record, or that seeks lifelong disqualification.
Since the regulatory purpose of disqualification is to prevent risk of recidivism, it is important to understand that certain crimes have higher recidivism rates. The research suggests depending on the occupation, law enforcement agencies, educational agencies, health care services agencies, child and elder care agencies, financial institutions, transportation agencies and other professional agencies should have special restrictions on employment of ex-offenders. In other words, offenders with specific prior records should be restricted in certain jobs.
Finally, according to the proviso of the first, fourth, sixth or ninth paragraphs of Section 8 of ”the Computer-processed Personal Data Protection Act”, it is permissible for employers to inquire about employees or job seekers' prior criminal records under certain important conditions. However, when they apply, they can only inquire about some specific crime records data. The results retrieved should not show the criminal records which exceed a specified period. Therefore, the study suggests that the principles mentioned above should be integrated and enforced in ”the Computer-processed Personal Data Protection Act”.

並列關鍵字

prior criminal records ； rehabilitation of ex-offender ； disqualification