粉碎特別權力關係的最後一道堡壘－論監獄行刑事件的權利救濟途徑

A Study on the Prisoner Rights Litigation

吳佳霖(Chia-Lin Wu)

指導教授 ： 李建良

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.02591

摘要

法官審理受刑人訴訟時，本應探求個案的特殊性，作出符合個案正義的判決；立法者針對不同事務領域為立法行為時，亦應考量各該事物領域之特殊性。既然所有事務領域相對於其他領域皆有其特殊性，則實無庸以特別權力關係理論或其他相似之概念詮釋監獄與受刑人之關係，應正面肯定受刑人與其他人民無異，均為基本權利主體，國家限制受刑人之基本權利時，應受我國憲法第23條之限制。
日本關於刑事設施與收容人處遇之法律對於受刑人權利義務事項規範明確，並將具有相似地位的收容人均納入其規範範圍，再針對個別事務，依據其身分之不同，而為相異之規定，值得作為我國未來修法之參考。而美國受刑人訴訟改革法案的預防性救濟條款、窮盡行政救濟途徑條款、非財產上損害條款、律師費用條款及訴訟救助條款，我國目前有足以達成相同目的之相關規範，故無引進美國制度之必要。
我國受刑人行刑事件的權利救濟途徑尚非十分完備，本文建議應修法解決。首先，由於監獄處遇亦有侵害受刑人基本權利，間接影響受刑人聲請假釋及折抵刑期長短之可能，應容許受刑人對所有監獄行為提起司法救濟。其次，如擬以刑事訴訟程序審理監獄行刑事件，因刑事訴訟法尚有諸多不足之處，應細緻化訴訟類型與審理程序。且不論未來依行政訴訟或刑事訴訟程序審理，基於訴訟經濟之要求，應可區分監獄行刑事件類型的不同，適用不同之程序。
最後，因法官並不具備與監獄人員相同程度的獄政專業能力，法院控制監獄行為的主要手段，應係審查監獄行為是否符合程序要求。因此，建構符合正當行政程序的申訴制度為我國受刑人行刑事件權利救濟途徑再造不可或缺的一環。

關鍵字

受刑人基本權利 ； 監獄行刑 ； 不介入理論 ； 特別權力關係 ； 受刑人訴訟改革法案 ； 關於刑事設施與收容人處遇之法律

並列摘要

The Prison Act in the Repbublic of China (R.O.C) was enacted in 1945. Although the Prison Act has amended several times, it doesn’t allow prisoners in the R.O.C the right of access to the court until now. The Judicial sytem in R.O.C refused to review prisoner complaints regarding conditions of confinement as well.
The United States passed The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) in 1996, which amends and supplements the U.S. Code in a number of ways in order to restrict and discourage litigation by prisoners. This article introduces the prospective relief provisions, the exhaustion of administrative remedies provisions, the three strikes provisions, the emotional injuries provisions, and the in forma pauperis provisions. However, as we don’t share the same historical backgrounds (the inmate litigation explosion) with the United States, the provisions mentioned above may not be the answer to our legal system.
On the other hand, in order to facilitate the rehabilitation and resocialization of inmates, with due regard to their humanity, Japan began their reforms of the penal systems. The Act on Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates which focuses on the treatment of sentenced inmates was approved at the Ordinary Session of the Diet in 2005, and the Act for Partial Revision of the Act on Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates which stipulates the treatment of unsentenced inmates was approved at the Ordinary Session of the Diet in 2006. The enforcement of the Act changed the title from “the Act on Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates” to “the Act on Penal and Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates”. The Prison Law in Japan then had been totally revised for the first time in nearly 100 years.
To sum up, while prisoner rights may be restricted by the facility and particular state of incarceration, prisoners do not lose their constitutional rights when they are incarcerated. The reform of our Prison Law should be done right away.

並列關鍵字

prisoners’ rights ； prison conditions ； the hands-off doctrine ； the Prison Litigation Reform Act ； the Act on Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates

參考文獻

陳隆志主編 (2006)，國際人權法文獻選集與解說，台北，前衛，2006年。

李建良 (2009)，押牢裡的自由與尊嚴－受羈押被告之憲法權利與司法救濟，台灣法學雜誌，第120期，第26-38頁，2009年1月15日。

盧映潔 (2010)，我國監所受拘禁人的人權狀況暨權利救濟需求之實證研究探討，發表於2010年司法保護與獄政人權學術研討會，2010年10月。

Belbot, Barbara (2004), Report On The Prison Litigation Reform Act: What Have The Courts Decided So Far, 84 The Prison Journal 290.

Butler, Thomas J. (1998-1999), Comment, The Prison Litigation Reform Act: A Separation of Powers Di- lemma, 50 ALA. L. REV. 585.