論保釋制度─以美國法為借鏡

Bail Reform: Lesson from United State

張琬婷(Wan-Ting Chang)

指導教授 ： 王兆鵬

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.02292

摘要

中文摘要
本文原係希望藉由探討美國法的保釋制度，而發現美國法利用保釋制度避免羈押的原因，而在研究過程中發現，美國法之所以得以藉由保釋制度有效避免羈押，最根本的原因在於美國法將保釋視為被告的權利，美國自憲法根本保障被告獲得保釋的權利，要求法院不得任意、恣意剝奪被告的保釋權。為此，法院除了必須以如何釋放被告為優先考量，不得任意進入是否拒絕保釋的思考層次外，在考量是否拒絕被告保釋時，也必須由檢察官證明，被告確實有無法藉由保釋制度預防逃亡、滅證、再犯的危險，法院才能拒絕被告保釋。
然而，與此相對，我國法下並無保釋權的概念，更而甚者，我國法並未節制法院應該優先考量被告的保釋。在我國法的架構下，美國法上所稱的「保釋」只是羈押的替代手段。亦即，無論被告涉犯的罪行或輕或重，法院均優先考量被告有無羈押的原因與必要，並在此時同時考量有無以保釋替代羈押的機會。亦即，在我國法下的保釋制度與羈押間，並無優先考量保釋的概念。
二者雖然僅是觀念的差異，但因為這個觀念的差異，導致我國是以羈押為原則，例外在被告逃亡、串證、再犯風險不高時，才有獲得保釋的機會，且由此衍生，保釋是被告無庸被羈押的恩惠，而非權利，我國法為此更不重視被告因保釋可能受到的人身自由、隱私、財產上的限制。最顯著的例子，即是我國法容許身為被告對造的檢察官為保釋的決定，由檢察官來決定是否拘束、限制被告的人身自由、隱私以及財產，此係嚴重侵害被告獲得釋放的權利的立法。
有鑑於此，本文即以扭轉我國法對於保釋與羈押的概念為軸心，探討美國法院運作保釋制度的概念，以及其如何重重地限制法官拒絕保釋的權力，更探討美國法現行的保釋手段有無值得我國法效法的地方，希冀藉此，完整我國法的保釋制度，增加被告在審判過程中獲得釋放、免於羈押的機會。

關鍵字

保釋制度 ； 具保 ； 責付 ； 限制住居 ； 保釋權 ； 電子監控 ； 特殊搜索

並列摘要

Abstract
I wrote this paper is for purpose of discovering why United States used Bail System to avoid taking people into custody by studying the bail system of the United State. However, in the process, I found the most basic reason that the bail the system of United States may avoid taking people into custody effectively, will lie in that United States regards bail as the defendant's right, the United State law radically safeguards the right from the constitution which the defendant will obtain releases on bail, will request the court not to have to deprive the defendant to release on bail the power willfully. Therefore, how does the court except have take to release the defendant as first to consider, does not have to enter willfully whether resists outside the ponder level which releases on bail, in considers whether resists when the defendant releases on bail, also must by the public prosecutor prove, the defendant has truly is unable because of to release on bail the system prevention to become a fugitive, to extinguish the danger which the card, violates again, the court can resist the defendant to release on bail.
However, with this relative, under our country law and not releases on bail the power the concept, and really, our country law by no means controls the court to be supposed first to consider defendant's releasing on bail. The substitution method which in the American law calls “releases on bail” only is takes into custody which under our country's method construction regardless of the defendant fords the crime which violates either light or heavy, the court first considers the reason and the necessity which whether there is the defendant does take into custody, and whether there is simultaneously considers in this time releases on bail the opportunity which the substitution takes into custody, releases on bail the system under our country law with to take into custody, and does not have the concept which first considers releases on bail.
Although the two are only the idea differences, but because of this idea difference, causes our country is take takes into custody as the principle, the exception becomes a fugitive when the defendant, the string card, violates the risk again not high, only then has the opportunity which obtains releases on bail, from this also grows, releases on bail is the defendant does not need kindness which takes into custody, but the non-right, our country law does not take in the personal freedom, the privacy, the property limit for this which because the defendant releases on bail possibly received. The most remarkable example, is our country law allowed the body for the defendant to the public prosecutor who makes for the decision which releases on bail, by the public prosecutor decided whether restricts, limits defendant's personal freedom, the privacy as well as the property, this is violates the defendant to obtain the release seriously the right legislation.
Given that this paper namely take reverses our country law regarding to release on bail with the concept which takes into custody as an axle center, discusses the American Court operation to release on bail the system the concept, as well as how does it layer on layer limit the authority which judge resists to release on bail, whether there is discusses the American law presently to release on bail the method to be worth our country law imitation the place, hopes for takes advantage of this, integrity our country method releases on bail the system, increases the defendant to obtain the release in the trial process, avoid the opportunity which takes into custody.

並列關鍵字

bail system ； right to bail ； electric control ； the bail reform act ； discretion to bail

參考文獻

2.王兆鵬，刑事訴訟講義，元照，2009年。

1.崔雲飛，無罪推定之具體實踐－以歐洲人權法院判例法為核心，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2006年7月。

2. 魏潮宗，拘捕後迅速移送法院之研究，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2009年1月。

3. 黃慧儀，羈押處遇之憲法權利－以美國法為借鏡， 國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年6月。

8.程明修(2009)，別說羈押法沒被「特別權力關係」的惡靈附身－司法院釋字第六五三號解釋簡評，台灣法學雜誌，124期。