毒品危害防制條例所定「3年後再犯」規定適用觀察勒戒之爭議－評最高法院109年度台上大字第3826號裁定

Controversy over the Application of Observational Forced Rehabilitation on ＂Repeated Narcotics Offence after 3 Years＂ in accordance with The Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act-Comments on the verdict of Taishang Dazi No. 3826 in the year of 109 by the Supreme Court

許福生(Hsu, Fu-Seng)

《軍法專刊》 68卷1期 (2022/02) Pp. 20-45

摘要

2020年7月15日施行的毒品危害防制條例，擴大緩起訴處遇模式之多元處遇，以使檢察官運用緩起訴制度更為彈性，並修正毒品危害防制條例第35條之1規定，作為過渡規定。為落實此次「從處罰到治療」寬鬆刑事政策變革，毒品危害防制條例第20條第3項所謂「3年後再犯」，基於正視施用毒品者其「病患」特質重於「犯人」身分，應確立以機構內、外之「治療」為首要工作，並建立機構內、外治療與刑罰交替運用及「定期治療」模式，應採觀察、勒戒時點說，即僅以被告本次再犯時間，與最近一次觀察、勒戒或強制戒治執行完畢釋放後，相距已逾3年即足，不因其間內是否另犯同條例第10條之罪經起訴、判刑或執行而受影響。最高法院109年度台上大字第3826號裁定符合放寬觀察、勒戒或強制戒治制度適用時機之立法意旨，相當可採。

關鍵字

施用毒品 ； 觀察勒戒 ； 強制戒治 ； 戒癮治療 ； 緩起訴

並列摘要

The Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act that came into effect on 15 July 2020, expands the multiple treatment modes of deferred prosecution, so that prosecutors can use the deferred prosecution system more flexibly, and it also amends the provision of Item 1 of Article 35 as an excessive. Therefore, in order to implement the reform of lenient criminal policy, the so-called ＂repeated offence after 3 years＂ under Item 3 of Article 20 of the abovementioned Act, is based on the awareness that the narcotics users are treated more as ＂patients＂ than as ＂criminals＂, so it needs to place it as a priority to provide ＂treatment＂ inside and outside the institutions, and establish a ＂regular treatment＂ mode with alternate use of treatment and criminal penalty within and without. The time-point theory shall be observed, namely, it only needs to concern that at lease 3 years have elapsed since the defendant is released after completing his latest observation, forced or compulsory rehabilitation, and it shall not be affected by the prosecution, sentence or execution of another offence under Article 10 during that period. The verdict of Taishang Dazi No. 3826 in the year of 109 by the Supreme Court, with its legislative purpose to relax the application timing of observation, forced or compulsory rehabilitation, thus is quite acceptable.

並列關鍵字

Use of Narcotics ； Observation and Forced Rehabilitation ； Compulsory Rehabilitation ； Narcotics Addiction Treatment ； Deferred Prosecution

參考文獻

許福生，《犯罪學與犯罪預防》，元照出版有限公司，2018 年 2 月，修訂 2 版，頁 536、537。

謝靜恒，〈談最高法院 109 年度台上大字第 3826 號裁定再看毒品危害防制條例第 24 條之修正（上）〉，《司法周刊》，2021 年 1 月 15 日，第 2038 期，頁 3。

許福生，〈論台灣毒品施用者之司法處遇〉，收錄於《刑事法學的浪潮與濤聲（刑事政策・刑事訴訟法）－甘添貴教授八秩華誕祝壽論文集》，元照出版有限公司，2021 年 4 月，頁 287-295。

許春金，《毒品施用者處遇及除罪化可行性之研究》，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究，2013 年 3 月，頁 18。

法務部 2021 年 3 月 26 日法矯字第 11006001760 號函