追求再犯預防的量刑政策及其省思—— 以緩刑制度為中心 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)ラ. The Introspection of Sentencing Policy for Reducing Recidivism Focus on Probation System. 2018. 7. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(2) DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(3) グ. -. 3. i. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(4) ド 2. 3. る 3 、 88. 2018. 8. 20. ii. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(5) ッ 2005 2010. ラり. ラララッ. ラ. iii. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(6) iv. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(7) . .................................................................................................... 1. .................................................................................... 1. ................................................................................................ 2. ..................................................................................... 2. ..................................................................... 4. ..................................................................................... 5. .................................................................................... 6. ......................................................................................................... 6. ......................................................................................................... 6. ......................................................................................................... 7. ............................................................. 11. ............................................................ 11. ................................................................................... 11. ............................................................... 13. ........................................................................... 15. ............................................................................................................... 17. ............................................................ 17. ............................................... 17. ................................................................... 19. ................................................................... 21. ....................................................... 22. ............................................................................................................... 24. ................................................................... 26. ............................................................... 26. ....................................................................... 27. ........................................................................... 29. ............................................................................................................... 32. ................................................................ 32. ............................................................................................... 33. ........................................................... 34. ............................................................................... 35. ............................................................................... 37. ............................................... 43 v. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(8) . ............................................................................................................. 46. ................................... 51. ........................................................................... 51. ................................................................................... 52. ........................................................................... 54. ............................................... 58. ............................................................................................................... 61. ....................................................................... 62. ........................................................................................... 62. ........................................................................................... 64. ........................................................................................... 66. ........................................................................................... 69. ....................................................................................... 70. ............................................................................................................... 73. ........................................................................... 73. ....................................................................................... 74. ............................................................................... 76. ............................................................................... 78. ....................................................................... 79. ............................................................................... 80. ................................................................................... 82. ................................................................ 84. ....................................................... 84. ................................................... 86. ................................................................................... 88. ............................................................................................................. 90. .................................................................... 93. .................................................... 93. ................................................................... 94. ............................................................... 95. ....................................................................................... 98. ............................................................................. 100. ......................................................................................... 100. ......................................................................... 101 vi. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(9) . ..................................................................... 102. ..................................................................... 103. ..................................................................... 105. ............................................................................................................. 106. ................................................................. 106. ................................................................. 106. ..................................................................................... 108. ..................................................................... 113. ............................................................................................................. 117. ..................................................................... 118. ................................................................. 118. ..................................................... 120. ......................................................... 121. ..................................................................... 123. ........................................................................................................... 124. ........................................ 137. ........................................................................................ 138. ................................................................. 140. ................................................................. 141. ................................................................. 143. ................................................................. 138. ─. ........................................................................................ 144. ..................................................................... 145. ......................................................................................... 150. ......................................................................................... 153 ........................................................................................................... 157. ................................................................................................ 159 ............................................................................................................ 163. vii. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(10) . viii. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(11) 2016 1985. 32 25,499. 2008. (1985-2016). 48,234. 2016. 36,000. 1985. 22.1%. 78.5%1. 2016. Revolving door. 2005 0. ラ. -. 2005 り》ラ 102. 170 57. ラ. 1. 83. 106 1. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(12) 2. 2018. ラ. 9 り 9. 57. り. 〈〈 3. 2. 57. 62. 6. 29-61. 2016. 12 3. 1985. 14 6. 1. 2. 37-76. 2. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(13) ッ 4. 2007. 2010 5. 102. 170. 57 102. 5251. 6. 57. 7. 4 5. 85. 166-176 55. 2002. 5. 6. 17-40. 2011. 10. 6. 102 212-218. 7. 2014. 5251. 6. 2 3. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(14) りり. ッ. 6 6 6 6 6. 6 —. — 6. 6 6 6. 8. 239-270. 2008. 9. 2014 10. 2018. 4. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(15) 6. -. -. 》. 11. 44 4. 12. 1887-1944. 2015. 12. 207-238. 176. 1985. 2. 163-. 6. 13 14. 1992. 47. 56. 3. 96-106. 1999. 4. 101-121. 2010. 43. 4. 8 15. 1609-1664. 2014. 12 5. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(16) -. 9. り. 〈. り. 2005 2010. を 6. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(17) ラり. グ. 1980. ラ. 9 ラ. 〈. 3. 7. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(18) -16. グ. 17. 18. 〈 19. -. 20. Evidence-based 21. 〈. Evidence-based. グ. 1 G. Guyatt. グ. J. Cairns. 16. 65. 17. 333. 18. 2012. 1997. 3. 2009. 6. 3. 339. 19. 181. 2013. 20. 31. 187-225. 2009. 6 31. 101-148 1895. 1. 2018. 4. 21. 10. 67-95. 2007. 12. 8. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(19) Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. 1992. Meta-analysis 22. 〈グ Roger K. Warren. グ. ラ 23. り. 、. -. ラ. 6 〈. 2. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6 3 Drug. 、 22. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching. the practice of medicine, Jama, 268(17), 2420-2425 (1992). 23. Warren, R. K., Evidence-based practices and state sentencing policy: Ten policy initiatives to. reduce recidivism, Ind. LJ, 82, 1307 (2007). 9. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(20) グ Community Treatment; Community-based Treatment. グ. Community. 24. ド. を、. Correction. グラ Treatment. 、. グ. グ 25. グ. 24 25. 26 3. 1. 79. 115-116. 1999. 2014 3. 4 30. 10. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(21) り. 2005 9. ラ 9. 9. 26. 26. 1. 1. 175-176. 2002. 3. 11. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(22) ラ —. — — —. 27. ラ. 28. Hybrid theory. 29. り. り 30. 27. 57 2. 10-12. 1982. 28. 1. 1 1-12. 2009. 12. Von Hirsch A. (1993). CENSURE AND SANCTIONS, 47-56. (U.K.:. Oxford University Press). 29. 26. 178-183. 30. 54. 5. 2017. 12. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(23) 31. 59 57. ……. 32. りり. ラ. り. 57. 6. 31 32. 519-523. 106. 2008. 1. 2770 13. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(24) — 33. り. ラ. 234 グ〈. グり 57 57. 57 35. 57 り. 33. 80. 34. 473 80. 473. 86. 7655. 90 101 214. 121-123. 2596. 5313. 86 96. 7583. 4332 2012. 12. 35. 41 126-127. 2011. 4. 1 14. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(25) 57. り. ッ. り. を. 〈 36. 、 37. 〈 -. —. 0. 36. 224. 76-79. 2011. 10 37. 2. 60-61 15. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(26) 〈. 〉ラ》. -. ッ -. ッ. 38 39. ララ40. 》 41. 38. 70 39. 69. 40. 2. 1-62. 295. 2009. 1994. 1996. 4 69. 41. 2. 2. 1. 12 34. 123-126 16. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(27) -. りり. グり. り. 2005. 2005. 1999 17. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(28) 2002 《 42. 43. 0 2005. 》. 44. 4. 45. 2 グ 42. 91. 19. 9. 2002. 4. 43. 92. 69-72. 2003. 1. 44. (94.1.7) 2018. 6. https://www.moj.gov.tw/cp-199-61959-79076-001.html. 21. 45. 2005 8-9. 2005/3/1-2 18. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(29) 46. 〈 1997 2003. 2-1 47. 6 2 25-35%. 1999 2-2. 48. 》. 46. 30 77-83. 47 48. 2016 77-83. 92. 105. https://www.tpi.moj.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=35595&CtUnit=14021&BaseDSD=7&mp=302 2018. 6. 21 19. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(30) 9 77 2. 2. 49. ラ. 50. -. ラ. 〈 51. り 52. 49. 4. 1. 7-9. 2008. 6. 50. 6 202-204. 2003. 10. 51 52. 126. 155. 2005. 11. 154-156 20. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(31) 53. 2005 》. 》. を. 2005 54. 0. 》. Diversion. を. 55. 53. (94.1.7) 001.html. 2005. 2018. 6. 1. https://www.moj.gov.tw/cp-199-61959-79076-. 21. 54. 96 55. 45. 2007. 5. 17-20 21. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(32) 56. 》. 57. Labeling Theory. 》 58. 59. 》. り. り 56. 57 58. 51. 2005/3/1-2 59. 137-138. 2005 50. 181 200. 402-405. 2013. 9. 22. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(33) 〈60. ッ. 61. 2005 57. ララ. ラ 62. 63. 57 〉 64. 60. 50. 208-209. 61. 49. 6-7. 29. 62. 67. 80. 2005. 63. 2. 2005 236. 64. 2005/3/1-2. 55 56. 157 231. 2. 231. 3. 3 267. 296. 23. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(34) 》 6 65. 6 グ 6 。 66. り. 2005. 1980. 67. 》. 4. 297. 322. 2. 327. 331. 345. 340. 350. 65. 28-31 2006. 66. 12 34. 132-134. 67. 11 81-83. 2008. 12 24. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(35) 68. 2005 り 69. り 70. 185. 2011. 3. 2013 1 》. 71. りラ. 68. 51. 145-146. 69. 131. 140-145. 2009. 1. 70. 17 175-176. 71. 186-187. 2014. 10. 2013 43. 1229-1230. 2014. 11 25. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(36) 2010. りラ. 9. 1990 1. ラ. 72. 1990 ララ73 ラ 74. ッ 75. 72. 89. 58. 424. 1990. 11. 73. 67. 8-13. 2007. 9. 74. 14. 75. 19 85. 2013 166-167. 7 2002. 6. 26. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(37) 2005. り. 2005 り. りラ. ラ. 2010. 2. 6 76. ラ. 7. 222 10. 227. 3. 2. ラ 3 77. 2. 99. 7. 7 78. 2011. 8. 222. 76. 99. 422. 77. 23-26 78. 2014. 1999. 10 99. 1-40. 2003. 6. 7. 27. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(38) 79. 7. 6. 2011. 2. 2010. -. 11. 20. 12. 652. 35%. 20 80. 81. 82. ラララ. ラ. 79. 99. 7. 1. 627-659. 80. 2017 2011. 3 2. https://xteam.wwww.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/0214 2018. 6. 21. 81. 82. .pdf. 200. 77. 321. 2012. 1. 27 28. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(39) 2002 ラ 2005 〈. 83. 2011. 2 84. -. ラ. 63.6%. 88.7%. ラ. /. /. 85. 、 86. 6 87. 83. 14 27-28. 84. 2013 75. 7 166-176. 85. 2009. 260. 274. 8. 86. 83. 87. 1795. 28-29 1. 35 2016. 4. 29. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(40) -. 47. 1. 88. 62. 57. 58 57. 89. 57 -. 90. -. り. グ. 88. 1. 126-142. 2013. 7. 89. http://sen.judicial.gov.tw/pub_stole_sbin/stole_chkid_Project3.cgi 90. 88. 2018. 6. 21. 131 30. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(41) 4 91. -. 〈92. 93. ラ -. 91. 101 14. 41-58. 2013. 7. 92. 93. 55. 83. 4. 5. 26. 32. 2011. 10. 21-40 31. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(42) り. ラ. ラ。〈 -. ラ 0. — -. 94. 2 -. 94. 102 984. 105. 170 133-186. 105. 2018. 3. 32. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(43) 2005 、. 2007 40,461 41,245. 2012. 2003. 58,674. 56,000. 2-3. 6 2005. 20,000. 70%. 2-4 》 93.19%. 6 81.47%. 81.58%. 2-2. Revolving door. 2005 6 2. 33. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(44) — 2002. 95. 57. — 096. —. — 97. 57. -. 95. 59. 4. 68. 2015. 8. 96. 51-57 97. 2015 14. 109 34. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(45) 98. 99. 100. 101. ラ. 2005 74. 1. 98 99. 12 107. 208. 12 2889. 100. 13. 96-98. 101. 15. 1640. 163-164 107. 1578. 35. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(46) -. -. 》 74. 253. 2. 2. 2 75 75. 1. 74. -. 2. 2005 》. 2. 74. グ. 2. 8. 102. 103. 〈. 104. 102. 44. 103. 50. 104. 212 213-214 36. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(47) ラ. ッ. 〈ッ 105. 》. 106. 74. 2. — ラ. — 》》. -. -. -. 105 106. 67 51. 81. 2005. 2. 137 37. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(48) -. -. 107. 74. -. 2 》. 、 2018. 2018. 5. 3. -. -. 185. 1. 3. 1 2 -. -. …… 107. 15. 1651 38. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(49) 108. …… 6 2. 1.3860. 11. 6 6. 2. 6. 〈. —. -. 109. 、. 〈. -. -. -. 3. 6 -. 30. 1. 339. 1. 108. 107. 109. 106. 876 2660 39. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(50) 1 1 110. ……. 284. -. 1. …… 16 …… 111. …… 3. 3 — -. -. -. 3. -. 2. -. 、. 3. 112. 110. 107. 111. 16. 107. 67. 112. 29. 6. 44. 2012. 12 40. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(51) 113. -. ラ -. —. -. —. 74 5. 2. 1 100. ……. -. 114. 1200. 6. 3. 〈. -. 74 2. 8 1. 3 2. 93 ─. -. 115. 2014. 113. 36-38. 2010 114 115. 107. 6 106. 4128 41. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(52) 2016. 6. -. -. 74. 2. 5. 80. 4. 116. ……. ラ. -. 74. 2. 8. 2 116. 107. 445 42. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(53) -. -. ッ. 117. -. グ〈り -. 118. 》. りり. -. ラ. 117 118. 15. 1640 1648-1650 43. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(54) ……. ……. ……. 119. 2 120. 57. 121. 57 57. ッ. 119. 102. 170. 120. 2001~2008 2009 121. 2. 39. 44. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(55) 122. -. -. 、. -. 2018. 3. 29. 1. 123. Evidence-based. グ. 124. グ. 、. 》. ラ -. り -. 122. 2. 123 124. 51-60 20. 21. 67-95 45. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(56) ララ. 57 〈. ッグ. -. -. 2005. 57. り. 2005 2010. 〈. 46. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(57) グ. ラ. 2005. -. -. -. り. -. ラ. 47. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(58) 90%. 60000. 80%. 50000. 70% 60%. 40000. 50%. 30000. 40% 30%. 20000. 20%. 10000. 10%. 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015. 83. 106. 83. 106. 0%. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%. 6. 48. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(59) 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016. 92. 106. 80%. 35000. 70%. 30000. 60%. 25000. 50%. 20000. 40%. 15000. 30%. 10000. 20%. 5000. 10% 0%. 0. 6. 87. 106. 49. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(60) 50. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(61) 57. 1980 2000. 2013. 6. ラ. り. 9 9. り. 9. 9 9. 《 51. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(62) 1978. 3 53. 125. 1985. -. 3 60 126. — 1988. 3 63 10. 1978 20. 127. 〈、. 125. 53 2018. 6. 126. 21 60. 2018. 6. 127. 6. http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/26/nfm/mokuji.html. 21 63. 2018. http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/19/nfm/mokuji.html. http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/29/nfm/mokuji.html. 21 52. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(63) 128. 9. 〈. ド 129. —. 130. 131. 1980. 128. 39 1. 13. 1986. 1. 129. 39. 20. 1986. 1. 19-. 1. 130. 41 19-26. 1988. 10. 131. 1988. 10. 41. 10. 29-31. 10 53. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(64) 〈. 20 2000. 1. 2000. 2001. 12 2002. 5. 9. 132. 133. 132. 21 1. 2. 1. 1. 133. 15-16. 2003. 7. 2002 48. 6. 35-36. 2003. 6 54. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(65) 2003. 4. 10. 12 -. -. — — 134. 1.. —. 2.. 3.. 2005. -. 1. —. 135. 〈. 136. ラ 137. —. 30 ラ. 134. ~. ~. http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000001612.pdf. 2018. 6. 21. 135. 1 136. 134. 1. 47. 2017. 12. 12. 137. 21 1. 1. 130-131. 2003. 7 55. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(66) 103 ラ. 138. 2005 ララ. 、 139. 140. ララ. ラ. 2004 2005. 11. 7. 2 11. 5 138. 51 28-32. 2014. 3. 6. 139. 1. 1. 8. 2017. 12. 140. 1. 1. 36. 2017. 12 56. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(67) -. 2006. 6 17. -. 141. 》〈 Nothing works Evidence-based practice. ラ. 142. 2007. 1 1 51. 2. 4. 〈 141. -. http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000010041.pdf. 142. 41. 2018. 6. 21 1. 2006. 2-. 8 57. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(68) —. ラ 143. net-widening. 》. —. — 144. ラ. —. 145. 146. 3 -. 143. 1 3-6. 2007. 1. 1. 6. 144. 39 145. 55-56 142. 2014 21-23. 146. 11. 1893-. 903 58. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(69) 147. 148. 2006 77. 7 ラ. — 77. 149. 3 150. 1978 151. り 2001. 5. 56.5%. 35.1%. 152. — 147. 1. 6. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/kanbou_gyokei_bunka01_gijiroku06.html 21. 1. 2018. 6. 2018. 6. 7. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/kanbou_gyokei_bunka01_gijiroku07.html 21 148. 141. 149 150. 11. 1893-903. 11. 1895. 1897. 151. 2018 152. 3 23. 2006. 6. 21. 12. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_061215-1.html. !. 8 59. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(70) 153. 。 154. ッ. ッ 155. ッ 156. 4 157. 158. 7-8 159. 5 160. 153. 45. 3. 498-502. 154. 2006. 45. 2006. 3. 4 481-485. 4. 155. 23. 133-135. 2002. 130. 1990. 156. 1. 1. 106-107. 2017. 12. 157. 47. 3. 427. 2008. 4. 158. 22. 3. 3. 159. 705. 3-30. 2007. 3. 160. 12 60. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(71) 161. 162. 163. り. ラ 164. 2018. 3. 2008. 6. 21. 161 162. 2. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_080204-1.html. 5. 11. 1917-1920. 163. 2018. 18 3. 2009. 6. 21. 164. 71. 1. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_090129-1.html. 29 1. 10. 2018. 1 61. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(72) グ. 《. 27. 2. 77. 165. 165. 1 165-166. 1985. 5 62. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(73) 166. 167. 168. 、. 169. 、 166. 19. 20. 2009. 2. 167. 15 http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/183/0004/18306110004017.pdf 6. 2018. 21. 168. 66 4. 2013. 11. 14. 1. 11. 169. 225-227. 2015. 3 63. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(74) 170. 171. 172. 173. 3-1. 27. 2. 3. 1 -. -. 3 5. 170. 1 33. 267-268. 2015. 10. 171. 17. 218-219. 2016. 172. 173. 17 197. 196-. 2016 64. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(75) 3 27. 2. 1. 3. 》. 5. 3 2. 27. 1 -. -. 3. 3 174. -. 175. 6. 176. 174. 2018 175. 13 12. 2008. 6. 21. 3. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_080328-1.html. 66. 68. 55 176. 6. 2016 77. 126. 3 241. 3. 9 1 240. 1. 3 65. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(76) ラ. -. 177. 178. -. 、. -. 179. -2 -2 1. -. 2 -. -. 、. 》. 27 1. 2. 1. -. 5. 27 2. 6. 3. 6. 2. 177. 173. 204. 20. 2. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_090310-1.html 178. 170. 2009 2018. 3 6. 21. 268−271. 179. 173. 198. 66. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(77) 2. -. 2 3-2. 4 51 2. -3 2. 11. ラ -. 〈の. 2. -. 3. 180. -3 1. 5 り 181. 5 1. 182. 5. 7 -. 180. 173 181. 207-208 170. 282-284. 182. 67. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(78) ラ 183. 184. ララ. — 185. 4 . 68 46. 2016. 1. 1. 183. 9 201. 2017. 1. 184. 2016 185. 1. 53 9. 4. 25 173. 169. 203. 230-233 68. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(79) 51. 、. 2. 4. 186. -. ラ. ラ187. 27 27. 4. 7 27. 4. -. -. 27. 2. 1. 3. 5. 27. 5. 27. 3. 1. 186. 2 187. 1. 33-34 183. 2016. 5. 195-196 69. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(80) 188. 27. 7 -. り. 189. 27. 2. 1. 2 25. -. 2. 1 188. 4. 189. 1. 27 25. 1. 2. 1. 1. 3. 2 70. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(81) 190. -. -. 191. -. 26. 2. 192. 193. ラ. を. -. ラ 194. 190. 87. 40-41. 2015. 191. 6 25. 27. 2. 192. 6. 1. 1. 169. 193. 2012. 3 1. 189. 2014. 5 194. 30 80. 2015 71. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(82) 195. 196. -. ラ. 、 28 27. 2. 1. 1. 3 5. 35 -. ラ. -. -. 28. -. 3. 1. 195. 190. 40. 1. 144-145. 196. 5. 1. 2012. 3 72. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(83) 197. 198. 、. -. 〈 199. 197. 11. 1910-14. 198. 173. 214. 199. 14 20-23 2018. 6. 2008. 4. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_080425-1.html. 21 73. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(84) グ. りグ. 9 グ. りラ 27. 2. 1 〈 200. り. -. り. 〈. 201. 202. -. 203. 200. 170. 201 202 203. 289 183. 170. 191-197. 272-273 183. 193 74. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(85) り. ラ 204. — 205. 206. TCK 207. り. り. 204. 170. 205. 273-275 183. 195-196. 206. 21 489-490. 207. LEX. 2017. DB. 2018. 1 TKC. 6. 1. https://lex.lawlibrary.jp. 21 75. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(86) 〈. -. 3 -. 4. -. 1. 〈. -. ラ. -. り〈. 〈. -. -. 〈. 2 -. -. -. -. -—. -. 76. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(87) ラ 2016. 〈. 855 816. 412. 404. 95%. 208. り、. -. 209. り -. -. -. 〈 -. ラ. 〈. ラ. -. 2. 208. 16-00-70. https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-search/file-download?statInfId=000031612519&fileKind=0 2018. 6. 21. 209. 54. 2. 47-48. 2017. 3. 77. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(88) -— ララ. 〈. 210. 12. -. -. -. 2. 25. 2. -. 2 、 -. -. -. -. 210. 28. 511. 29. 2. 6. 2. LEX/DB. 25546814 78. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(89) 211. 、り -. ラ. 〈. 1. -. 」 -. -. 。. 212. -. 2. 3. 1 -. -. 、 -. -. 3 -. 〈. 、. 3. 211. 1 1. 212. 17. 2016 28. 5 42. 28. 9. 1. 3. LEX/DB. 25448250 79. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(90) 、》. -. -. え -. -. -. り》. 213. -. ッ. 5. 1. -. 1. -. 5. -. -. -. ラ. -. -. 5 213. 28. 158. 28. 6. 24. 1. LEX/DB 25448221 80. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(91) 66. 68. -2. 6. 、 -. 214. 215. 2. -. -. -. の. 214. [ 28.6.24. ]. watch. 20. 217-218. 2017. 4 215. 209. 50-52 81. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(92) 〈. り. -. 、. グ. —. -. り 2. -. ラ、. -. り. -. 》. 82. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(93) -. 、 -. -. ラ. -. -. ラ. 〈ラ. -. — 216. -— TCK. 》. 216. 11 26. 1923-1926 117-119. 2017. 3 83. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(94) -. 9. 217 218. ラ 219. り. 217. 6. http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/search1. 2018. 21. 218. 57. 219. 1 16. 2011. 1. 1. 9 84. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(95) 〈220. 221. 〈. -. 222. 〈. -. 、 223. ッ -. 〈〈〈224. 220. 196. 147. 221. 1 1. 222. 268. 10. 4 1. 223. 1992. 1. 51. 2011. 12. 68 21 47. 224. 21. 221. ( 1. 2. 26-33. 2010. ). 3. 274-275 85. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(96) 225. 226. -. -. -. 227. 、 228. グ. 225. 190. 40. 226. 1 227 228. 190. 1. 145. 2017. 12. 44 183. 193 86. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(97) グ. 3. 、 -. 229. -. -. 〈. -. 230. 229. 169. 230. 236-237 1130. 154-156. 9. 5. 27. 1604. 1997 87. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(98) 〈. 、. ラ. 。. 231. り. 232. -. ラ. 0. -. -. ラ 233. 3. 231. 54 37-38. 232. 2017 260. 121−2. 233. 1 88. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(99) 1. 6 -. ラ. -. — ララ. -. ラ —. ッ 234. ラ. ラ. ラ. りグ. 、グ. 647-650 234. 2016. 11 11. 1917-1926 89. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(100) 〈. -. 、. ラ. り -. ラ. -. 〈. 90. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(101) -. ララ. 91. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(102) 3-1. り. 3. 3. (. ). Niben frontier. 161. 4. 2017. 3. 3-2 2. 6. ─. 127. 6. 20-27. 2016. 6. 92. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(103) ラ — グ 1980. — 〈ラ -. — グ. 9 9. 1970. — —. —. ッ》. 93. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(104) — —. 1974. Martinson —. 、. 9 235. Nothing works. り 236. 》. あ. Martinson 237. —. 》. り Just deserts. —. ッ. — 〈. 238. 235. Martinson, R., What works? –Questions and answers about prison reform, (35), THE PUBLIC INTEREST, 46-49 (1974). 236 Morris, N., The future of imprisonment: Toward a punitive philosophy, 72(6), MICH LAW REV,1178-1180 (1974). 237 Martinson, R, New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform, 7, HOFSTRA LAW REV, 257-258 (1978). 238 Von Hirsch, A. (1976). DOING JUSTICE: THE CHOICE OF PUNISHMENTS, 16-18, 147-148. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd). 94. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(105) Natural. 〈 justice. 1970 — — Tough on Crime. —. 〈〈. 1 Indeterminate sentence. -. 3. 5 — — 239. 1984. Sentencing Reform Act -. Truth-in-sentencing policy. Mandatory. minimum penalties ララ . 239. Tonry, M. H. (2016). SENTENCING FRAGMENTS: PENAL REFORM IN AMERICA, 1975-2025,3. (New York: Oxford University Press). 95. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(106) 1994. Violent Crime Control and Law. Enforcement Act 240. 241. three-strikes life-without-prole Sentencing guideline. 〈. 1. — 〈. 1. ラ. ラ. 242. . 240. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Available at : https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 241 Turner, S., Greenwood, P. W., Fain, T., & Chiesa, J. R, An evaluation of the federal government’s violent offender incarceration and truth-in-sentencing incentive grants, The Prison Journal, 86(3), 371 (2006). 242 Bierschbach, R. A., & Bibas, S, What's Wrong with Sentencing Equality?, 102, VA LAW REV, 1474-1475 (2016). 96. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(107) 243. 244. 245. 》 1979 30. 1999. 2005. 13.4. 1986. 66. 48%. 246. 87%. 247. 1972 6. 2000. 472 》. 248. 》 1970 1%. 23 2001. 3%249. 125. 250. . 243. Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T, Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines, 13(1), JUSTICE Q, 101-102, (1996). 244 Shepherd, J. M, Police, prosecutors, criminals, and determinate sentencing: The truth about truthin-sentencing laws, 45(2), J LAW ECON, 529-531 (2002). 245 Sabol, W. J. The influences of truth-in-sentencing reforms on changes in states' sentencing practices and prison populations, 14 (2002). Available at: http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/410470.html (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 246 Gilpin, A, The impact of mandatory minimum and truth-in-sentencing laws and their relation to English sentencing policies, 29, ARIZONA J INT COMP L, 107 (2012). 247 Oliss, P, Mandatory minimum sentencing: Discretion, the safety valve, and the sentencing guidelines, 63, U CINCI LAW REV, 1857-58 (1994). 248 Pettit, B., & Western, B, Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in US incarceration, 69(2), AM SOCIOL REV, 151-69 (2004). 249 Guetzkow, J., & Western, B (2007). The political consequences of mass imprisonment. In: Freeman, Richard B., et al., REMAKING AMERICA: DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN AN AGE OF INEQUALITY., 237. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation). 250 Wood, P. B., & Dunaway, R. G, Consequences of truth-in-sentencing: The Mississippi case, 5(2), 97. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(108) 251. 1. ラ. ラ》. —. 252. 〈. り〈. PUNISHM SOC, 148 (2003). 251 Doob, A. N., & Cesaroni, C, The political attractiveness of mandatory minimum sentences, 39, OSGOODE HALL LAW J, 299 (2001). 252 Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (5th ed. 2010). THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, 443-447. (New York: Routledge). 98. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(109) — 1980. — 253. 254. — Cognitive behavioral therapy, CBT 〈 255. 68. 256. ラ 257. Risk-need-responsivity, RNR 258. RNR ラ. ラ Criminogenic needs. ララ. . 253. McGuire, J (2004). UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIME: PERSPECTIVES ON THEORY AND ACTION, 136-143. (New York: Open University Press). 254 Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D, Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology, 17(1), CRIM JUSTICE BEHAV, 20-23 (1990). 255 Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A., & Ewles, C. D, Reasoning and rehabilitation,32(1), INT J OFFENDER THERA, 32-34 (1988). 256 Lipton, D. S., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D (2003). The effectiveness of cognitivebehavioural treatment methods on offender recidivism. In: McGuire, James, ed., OFFENDER REHABILITATION AND TREATMENT: EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMES AND POLICIES TO REDUCE RE-OFFENDING, 106-107. (England: John Wiley & Sons). 257 Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A, A commentary on Ward and Stewart's model of human needs 9(3), PSYCHOL CRIME LAW, 215-218 (2003). 258 Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D, Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology, 17(1), CRIM JUSTICE BEHAV, 20 (1990). 99. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(110) ラ. ラ. ラ RNR ッ RNR. —. —. 259. — — グラグ 260. グ Evidence-based policy. グ. グ 261. . 259. Ward, T., Melser, J., & Yates, P. M, Reconstructing the Risk–Need–Responsivity model: A theoretical elaboration and evaluation, 12(2), AGGRESS VIOLENT BEH, 208-228 (2007). 260 Warren, R. K., supra note 23, at 603. 261 Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Preventing crime. In: Sherman, Lawrence W., et al., eds., EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME PREVENTION, 3. (London: Routledge). 100. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(111) 262. 〈 4-1 263. 〈. Clinician. 3 〈. 262. Id. at 4-5. Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh B. C. (2002). The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In: Sherman, Lawrence W., et al., eds., EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME PREVENTION, 18-19. (London: Routledge); MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Reducing the criminal activities of known offenders and delinquents: Crime prevention in the courts and corrections. In: Sherman, Lawrence W., et al., eds., EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME PREVENTION, 333-344. (London: Routledge). 263. 101. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(112) 264. グ. Pre-sentence investigation 265. 266. 〈の 267. 268. 〈. グラ 269. 1970. 264. Chalmers, I, Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: the role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations, 589(1), ANN AM ACAD POLIT SS, 23-25 (2003). 265 Carter, R. M, The presentence report and the decision-making process, 4(2), J RES CRIME DELINQ,203-211 (1967). 266 Morris, N., & Miller, M, Predictions of dangerousness, 6, CRIME JUSTICE, 14 (1985). 267 Elbogen, E. B, The process of violence risk assessment: A review of descriptive research, 7(6), AGGRESS VIOLENT BEH, 594-595 (2002). 268 Lindsay, W. R., & Beail, N, Risk assessment: Actuarial prediction and clinical judgement of offending incidents and behaviour for intellectual disability services, 17(4), J APPL RES INTELLECT, 232 (2004); Doyle, M., & Dolan, M, Violence risk assessment: combining actuarial and clinical information to structure clinical judgements for the formulation and management of risk, 9(6), J PSYCHIATR MENT HLT, 651 (2002). 269 Sherman, L. W, Evidence and liberty: The promise of experimental criminology, 9(1), CRIMINOL CRIM JUSTIC, 7 (2009). 102. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(113) STATIC-99 18. 3 4-2. 270. 271. 、 272. を、ラ〈. Static factors. ラ. 〈. ラ Dynamic factors RNR. RNR. 270. Harris, Andrew, et al (2003). STATIC-99, CODING RULES REVISED, 2003. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada. 271 Lindsay, W. R., & Beail, N, Risk assessment: Actuarial prediction and clinical judgement of offending incidents and behaviour for intellectual disability services, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(4), 232-33 (2004). 272 Jones, P. R, Risk prediction in criminal justice, Choosing correctional options that work, 33-68 (1996). 103. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(114) 4-. を. ラ273. 3 ラ. ラ. 〈「. Historical Clinical and Risk Management HCR-20. Level of Service Inventory-Revised. LSI-R 4-4. 274. HCR-20. 275. 4-5. 276. LSI-R LSI-R. ラ 277. HCR-20 〈ラ RNR. 9. ラ. 278. ラ . 273. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A., Supra note 252, at 499. Douglas, K. S., & Webster, C. D, The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders, 26(1), CRIM JUSTICE BEHAV, 3-19 (1999). 275 Belfrage, H., Fransson, R., & Strand, S, Prediction of violence using the HCR-20: A prospective study in two maximum-security correctional institutions, 11(1), J FORENSIC PSYCHIATR,173 (2000). 276 New South Wales dept. of corrective services. (2002). LSI-R Training Manual: (Level of Service Inventory - Revised). Available at: http://dhs.sd.gov/drs/recorded_videos/training/lsi-r/doc/LSIR%20introductory%20training%20Participant%20Manual.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 277 Lowenkamp, C. T., & Bechtel, K, The predictive validity of the LSI-R on a sample of offenders drawn from the records of the Iowa Department of Correction Data Management System, 71, FEDERAL PROBATION J, 25 (2007). 278 Ward, T., & Stewart, C, Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model, Psychology, 9(2), PSYCHOL CRIME LAW,128-132 (2003). 274. 104. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(115) ッ 279. りラ. 280. Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions COMPAS 4-6. 281. COMPAS. -. 1 6. 12 2.7%. 11%. 25.3%. 61.0%. 7.5%. 13.2%. 42.1%. 18.1%. 38.4%. COMPAS 282. COMPAS. 279. Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). THE ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT OF WOMEN OFFENDERS: AN INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE, 47-48. (England: John Wiley & Sons). 280 Singh, J. P., Kroner, D. G., Desmarais, S. L., Wormith, J. S., & Hamilton, Z. (Eds.). (2018). HANDBOOK OF RECIDIVISM RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOLS, 50-53. (England: John Wiley & Sons). 281 Blomberg, T., Bales, W., Mann, K., Meldrum, R., & Nedelec, J. (2010). Validation of the COMPAS risk assessment classification instrument, 14-15. Available at: http://criminology.fsu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Validation-of-the-COMPAS-Risk-Assessment-Classification-Instrument.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 282 Id. at 32-34. 105. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(116) ラ. ッ. 283. ラ 4-7 ラ. 〈 — Evidence-based sentencing. 30 ラ. ラ 2011. Brown v. Plata. 283. Fass, T. L., Heilbrun, K., Dematteo, D., & Fretz, R, The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation data on two risk-needs tools, 35(9), CRIM JUSTICE BEHAV, 1106-1107 (2008). 106. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(117) State of California 8 ラ. Prison Litigation Reform Act. 〈. ─. ─ ─ 284. 2 〉. ラ〈. 285. 〉. Incapacitation 286. 〉ラ 9 287. . 284. 563 U.S. 493 (2011). Kelly, W. R (2016). THE FUTURE OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: SMART POLICIES FOR REDUCING CRIME AND SAVING MONEY, 134. (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield). 286 Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S, Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science, 91(3_suppl), PRISON J, 53S-59S (2011). 287 Wolff, M. A, Evidence-based judicial discretion: Promoting public safety through state sentencing 285. 107. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(118) ラ -. 、 288. ラ —. —. -. ラ — ラ. -. ラ — -. -. 、. ラ -. 、. -. -. 〈 -. ラ. 9. -. -. reform, 83, NEW YORK U LAW REV, 1394-1395 (2008). Id. at 1412-1415.. 288. 108. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(119) 289. り. Forward-looking 2010. -. Malenchik v. Indiana. ……. …… 290. -. -. 、 -. ラ. -. ラ. . 289. Casey, P. M., Warren, R. K., & Elek, J. K. (2011). Using offender risk and needs assessment information at sentencing: Guidance for courts from a national working group. Available at: http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/microsites/files/csi/rna%20guide%20final.ashx (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 290 Indiana Supreme Court, No. 79S02-0908-CR-365. Available at: https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06091001bd.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 109. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(120) 291. 292. -. -. Transtheoretical Model — 6 stages of change -. — — 293. -. 〈. 、 -. . 291. Wolff, M. A., Supra note 287, at 1410. Monahan, J. (2017). Risk Assessment in Sentencing, 93. Available at: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/5_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_RiskAssessment-in-Sentencing.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 293 Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C (1994). CHANGING FOR GOOD 40-56 (New York: Avon Books). 292. 110. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(121) RNR 294. -. ラ. ラ. 295. 〈. 296. -. -. ラ. ラ. 、. ググ〈 . 294. Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J, An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision, 38(11), CRIM JUSTICE BEHAV, 1145-1146 (2011). 295 Warren, R. K., Supra note 23, at 1311. 296 Elek, J. K., Warren, R. K., & Casey, P. M. (2015). Using Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Observations from Ten Jurisdictions, 27-30. Available at: http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CSI/RNA%202015/Final%20PEW%20Report%20updat ed%2010-5-15.ashx (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 111. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(122) 297. ラ. ラ. ラ 6. 298. 」. -—. -. ラ. 〈. -. 9. ラ〈. -. -. ラ. . 297. Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B, The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide5(3), VICTIMS OFFENDERS, 217 (2010). 298 Crime and Justice Institute (US), Guevara, M., & Solomon, E. (2009). IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCEBASED POLICY AND PRACTICE IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 11-20 (US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections). 112. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(123) 、 -. -. グ Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 9. Felony offender 2 299. ラ 300. Misdemeanor. 299. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, Ohio Risk Assessment System. Available at: http://drc.ohio.gov/oras (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 300 OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, Oregon Sentencing Guidelines. Available at: https://sentencing.umn.edu/sites/sentencing.umn.edu/files/Oregon%20Sentencing%20Guidelines.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 113. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(124) State of Oregon. 、. 6 301. ラ. Pre-plea. Pre-trail. Plea bargain. 6. ラ. 1. 2. 〈、 LSI-R. り. COMPAS. 1991 〈. ラ 1994. 85% 、 25% . 301. Elek, J. K., Warren, R. K., & Casey, P. M., Supra note 296, at A-128. 114. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(125) 302. -. 「. 12. 15 4-8. 303. 304. 20 〈. 〈 2017. 81.2%. 9.2%. 9.6%. -. 305. 》 65%. 306. 49.4% 39% Supervised probation. jail. Restitution. Unsupervised probation Substance abuse service. 307. 302. Kern, R. P., & Farrar-Owens, M, Sentencing guidelines with integrated offender risk assessment, 16(3), FEDERAL SENTENCING R, 165 (2004). 303 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines Cover Sheet. Available at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/worksheets_2017/SchI_II_type.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 304 Farrar-Owens, M, The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Virginia: an example of the importance of standardized and automated felony sentencing data, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25(3), 170 (2013). 305 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. (2017). Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission: 2017 Annual Report, 12. Available at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/2017AnnualReport.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 306 Id. at 20. 307 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission., Supra note 305, at 29. 115. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(126) -. 308. ララ. り. 1990 2010 2008. 2010. State. of Michigan. 2,122 309. 2010. ラ. ラ 29. ラ. ラ Risk screen tool. ラ . 308. Monahan, J., Supra note 292, at 82. Pew Center on the States. (2010). Prison count 2010: state population declines for the first time in 38 years. Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/sentencing_and_corr ections/prisoncount2010pdf.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 309. 116. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(127) 125. 25 8. 0-14. 4-9. 310. 0 、. -. 311. 41%. 9. 312. 313. -. ラ314. 310. Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2011). Risk/Needs Assessment Project: Interim Report 1 Review of Factors used in Risk Assessment Instruments. Available at: http://www.hominid.psu.edu/specialty_programs/pacs/publications-and-research/research-andevaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-i-reports/interim-report-1-review-of-factors-used-in-riskassessment-instruments/view (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 311 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2014). Risk/Needs Assessment Project: Interim Report 8 Communicating Risk at Sentencing. Available at: http://www.hominid.psu.edu/specialty_programs/pacs/publications-and-research/research-andevaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-i-reports/interim-report-8-communicating-risk-atsentencing/view (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 312 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2012). Risk/Needs Assessment Project: Interim Report 6 Impact of Risk Assessment Tool for Low Risk Offenders. Available at: http://www.hominid.psu.edu/specialty_programs/pacs/publications-and-research/research-andevaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-i-reports/interim-report-6-impact-of-risk-assessment-tool-forlow-risk-offenders/view (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 313 Hyatt, J. M., Chanenson, S. L., & Bergstrom, M. H, Reform in Motion: The Promise and Perils of Incorporating Risk Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analysis into Pennsylvania Sentencing, 49, DUQUESNE LAW REV,742-744 (2011). 314 Id. at 744-746. 117. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(128) -. ラ. -. 、. ラ. -. 、. り〈ラ. -. 、. 、. 118. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(129) 、 PCL-R. 《 315. 316. 317. 100% 〈. -. -. 318. 、. 319. 315. Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C, Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice, 34(4), LAW HUMAN BEHAV, 259-274 (2010). 316 Hart, S. D., & Cooke, D. J, Another look at the (Im-) precision of individual risk estimates made using actuarial risk assessment instruments, 31(1), BEHAV SCI LAW, 81-102 (2013). 317 Baird, C, A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system, Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 10-11 (2009). 318 Ostrom, B., Kleiman, M., Cheesman, F., Hansen, R., & Kauder, N. B, Offender risk assessment in Virginia: a three-stage evaluation, Manuscript in preparation,23-24 (2002). 319 Mossman, D (2014). From group data to useful probabilities: The relevance of actuarial risk assessment in individual instances, 11-12. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ec8/b2daed6745f13e1e1cd693e8e36bcce5e28f.pdf (Last visited: 2018/6/21). 119. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(130) 320. -. り. ラ. りり. -. り. 1989 321. Mistretta v. United States v. Washington. 322. 2005. 2004. Blakely. United States v. Booker. 323. 6. ラ. ララ 324. Anchoring Effect. 320. Hannah-Moffat, K, Actuarial sentencing: An “unsettled” proposition, 30(2), JUSTICE Q, 277-278 (2013). 321 488 U.S. 361 (1989). 322 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 323 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 324 Ericson, R. V., Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D (1997). POLICING THE RISK SOCIETY 7 (New York: Oxford University Press). 120. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(131) 325. -. -. 326. ラ. -. り -. -. -. ラ. . 325. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., Phillips, L. D., Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, 185(4157), SCIENCE, 1128-29 (1974). 326 Hannah-Moffat, K., & Maurutto, P, Re-contextualizing pre-sentence reports: Risk and race, 12(3), PUNISHM SOC, 278-279 (2010). 121. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(132) — Sentencing Disparity. ラ -. -. -. 327. ラ 328. -. -. 〈ラ -. ララ. 〈. Discrimination 〈 329. Actuarial fairness. 、330. . 327. Cole, K. (1996). Empty Idea of Sentencing Disparity, 91, NORTHWEST U LAW REV,, 1336-1337. Bierschbach, R. A., & Bibas, S, supra note 242, at 1462-1475 (2016). 329 Starr, S. B, Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination, Stan. L. Rev., 66, 825 (2014). 330 Monahan, J., Supra note 292, 91-93. 328. 122. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(133) 、. ラ 331. 332. 333. 、. 〈. -. 334. ラ 335. . 331. Id. at 87-89. Botnick, C, Evidence-Based Practice and Sentencing in State Courts: A Critique of the Missouri System, 49, WASHINGTON U J LAW P, 175 (2015). 333 Starr, S. B,, Supra note 329, at 838-839. 334 Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). PREVENTIVE JUSTICE 124-125 (U.K.: Oxford University Press). 335 Harcourt, B. E. (2008). AGAINST PREDICTION: PROFILING, POLICING, AND PUNISHING IN AN 332. 123. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(134) — — — 〈ラ. グ -. ラ. 〈ラ —. -— 336. -. ACTUARIAL AGE 185-189 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 336 Starr, S. B., Supra note 329, at 842-847. 124. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(135) 4-1. ‧. Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh B. C. (2002). The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. Evidence-based crime prevention, 18-19.. 4-2 STATIC-99. l. 18-25 1. l 2. 25. 0. l. 2. 1. l. 2. 0. l. 1. Index crime. 125. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(136) l. 0. l. 1. l. 0. 0 1-2. 1. 1. 3-5. 2-3. 2. 6+. 4. 3. l. 4 1. l. 3. 0. l. 1. l. 0. l 1 l 0 l 1 l 24 0 l. 1. l. 0. Harris, A., Phenix, A., Thornton, D., & Hanson, R. K. 126. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(137) (2003). Static-99, coding Rules Revised, 2003. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada.. 4-3 RNR. ─. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Taylor & Francis, 499.. 127. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(138) 4-4 HCR-20. H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7. Psychopathy. H8 H9. Personality disorder. H10. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5. 128. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(139) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5. Douglas, K. S., & Webster, C. D. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(1), 3-19.. 4-5 LSI-R. l l l. 16. l l l l l l l l l l l. 129. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(140) l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l. New South Wales dept. of corrective services. (2002). LSI-R Training Manual: (Level of Service Inventory - Revised).. 130. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(141) 4-6 COMPAS. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l. Blomberg, T., Bales, W., Mann, K., Meldrum, R., & Nedelec, J. (2010). Validation of the COMPAS risk assessment classification instrument. College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 131. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(142) Tallahassee, FL.. 4-7. Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Static-99 Pre-Trial Risk Assessment tool (PTRA) HCR-20. LSI-R. Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) COMPAS. 132. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(143) 4-8. 12. l. 21. 9. l. 21-29. 6. l. 30-43. 3. l. 43. 1. l. 2. l. 0. l. 0. l. 1. l. 7. l. -. l. 0. 0. l. 1-2. 1. l. 3. 5. l. 4. 15. l. 0. 0. l. 1-3. 1. l. 4. 8. l. 3. 133. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(144) l. 0. Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines Cover Sheet. (Available at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/worksheets_2017/SchI_II_type.pdf) (Last visited: 2018/6/21).. 4-9. l. 0. l. 1. l. 24. 3. l. 24-29. 2. l. 30-49. 1. l. 50. 0. l. 0. l. 1. l. 2. l. 0. 0. l. 1. 1. l. 2-4. 2. l. 5-12. 3. l. 13. 4 134. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(145) l. 0. l. 1. l. 0. l. 1. l. 0. l. 1. l. 4. 0. l. 1-3. 1. Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2011). Risk/Needs Assessment Project: Interim Report 1 Review of Factors used in Risk Assessment Instruments. (Available at: http://www.hominid.psu.edu/specialty_programs/pacs/publications-andresearch/research-and-evaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-i-reports/interimreport-1-review-of-factors-used-in-risk-assessment-instruments/view) (Last visited: 2018/6/21).. 135. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(146) 136. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(147) ラ. ラ. り. り. り -. り. 、. -. ラグ -. -. -. ッ》. ラ 137. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(148) ラ. 2006 ラ 1980 Risk management. Offender management. 337. RNR RNR. ラ. Late-modern rehabilitation. — —. —. . 337. Robinson, G., & Crow, I. D. (2009). OFFENDER REHABILITATION: THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 45 (Sage). 138. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(149) — — — 338. 0 1980. —. —. ラ 339. — グ〈 340. ラ 0. — —. 〈 —. 338. Robinson, G, Late-modern rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy, Punishment & Society, 10(4), 432-435 (2008). 339 Id. at 435-437. 340. 57-59. 124 2013. 2. 139. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(150) 、341 ラ — り -. り. 〈. ラ. りり -. ラ . 341. Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. Why help offenders? Arguments for rehabilitation as a penal strategy, European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 14 (2009). 140. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(151) -. ラ〈 57 〈. 〈 57 57. 4 り. ラ -. 〈 -. — -. -— 57. 〈ラ. -. ラ. -. 342. ラ〈. ラ. 342. 19. 191 141. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(152) 〈. り -. -. 》. Net-widening. 、. ラ -. 、 -. -. ラ. 142. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(153) -. グ -. ラ. 、. — -. —. -. 343. ララ. -—. -. ラ 1992. —. European Rules on Community. ド. Sanctions and Measures. ラ. 32 ラ 344. 2010. ド. Council of Europe Rules & Recommendations on Probation 47. ……. 345. Social inclusion —. Rehabilitation を 346. ラ 343 344. 233. 644-45. THE EUROPEAN RULES ON COMMUNITY SANCTIONS AND MEASURES. https://pjp-. eu.coe.int/documents/3983922/6970334/CMRec+%2892%29+16+on+the+European+rules+on+comm unity+sanctions+and+measures.pdf/01647732-1cf7-4ea8-88ba-2c041bc3f5d6. Last visited:. 2018/6/21 345. Council of Europe Rules & Recommendations on Probation. content/uploads/2015/03/CMRec20101E.pdf. https://www.cep-probation.org/wp-. Last visited: 2018/6/21. 346. 143. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(154) ララ. 〈. ララ. 、. -. —. 、. Consent. -. 3.4 Rights of autonomy 347. -. ラ. -. ラ. -. -. ラ. 》. ラ 62. 2012. 347. Canton, R, Yes, no, possibly, maybe: Community sanctions, consent and cooperation, European Journal of Probation, 6(3), 210-17 (2014). 144. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(155) ラりグラ. りラ -. -. 、 74. グりッ. 》. ラり. り 348. 349. 〈. グ. ラ -. 348. 116 349. 276 15. 2010. 8. 1639 145. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(156) り. 6 -. -. 350. 351. ッ -. -. -. ラ Social. ラ skill training -. -. 352. 》. -. 350. 106. 351 352. 1365 106. 107. 648 6. 146. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(157) 2. -. ラ -. 〈. -. -. 353. 6. —. 、. -. -. 354. -. り. -. -. -. ラ -. -. ラ. 353. 107. 507. 354. 147. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(158) -. り -. 〈 -. 320. -. ラ. —. 、. 1. -1. 6. 2. -. 3. ラ. -. 〈 6 6 》. ラ. 、. 。、 -. グ. -. 10. 6. 6. 6 14. 12. グ、. -. 、 -. ラ. 、. 148. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(159) -. ラ. ラ. りラり. りラ. りラりラ. ラ 355 356. 34. 121-123. 217-218. 1997. 3. 149. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(160) -. -. グラ -. ラ. 9. ラ. 〈 357. ラ. ラ -. 357. 5-6. 2013. https://www.space.ntu.edu.tw/navigate/s/DE7ECF1A06BA44D58514FA93E0ED8174QQY 2018. 6. 21 150. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(161) -. ラ. 〈. 〈. -. り 358. ラ -. 、. り - ラ. -. 197. -. 〈 359. ラ. 358. 18 359. 15. 1. 17-. 2015 15. 568. 2015. 9. 151. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(162) 360. -. 〈. 208. 1. ララ 208 -. ラ. 289. 3. 57 361. ラ. ラッ. 360. 23. 3-49. 2018. 2. 361. 24. 35-36. 2013. 7. 152. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(163) ラ 289. 3 、ッ. -. -. ラ〈、ラ -. ラ. -. ラ. -. -. -. -. ラ. -. -. -. ラ. 153. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(164) ラ. 4-7 -. COMPAS. ラ. 4-6 -. ラ. COMPAS -. 7. 362. 6 6 363. 362. 16. 1-26. 2013. 12. 363. 30 6. 604-616. 2011 1-28. 46. 6. 2016. 5. 154. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(165) ラ 6. ラ. -. -. り. ラ. 、. 〈. ラ. 155. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(166) ラ. り -. ラ. ッ -. 〈 2002. 173. 220. 2003. 2007. 2009. 9. 52. 364. 2005. え365 364. (94.1.7) 2018 365. 2005 6. 1. https://www.moj.gov.tw/cp-199-61959-79076-001.html. 21 2005 14. 1. 1. 344-45. 2007. 6 156. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(167) 、. -. -. 》. ララ —. -. を. グラ. り. -. 157. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(168) 70000. 250. 60000. 200. 50000 40000. 150. 30000. 100. 20000 50. 10000 0. 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016. 83. 106. 158. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(169) 3 グッ》 -. -. 、. 2000 ラ -. り. 、. グりグ -. ラ. ラ -. 1980. 、. — —. グ. 159. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(170) ラ、. ッ. ラ. 〈. ラグ -. -. -. り. -. ラ. ラ. -. -. -. ラ. -. ララ. を -. -. 160. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(171) -—. ラ -. 、. ラ. -. 161. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(172) 162. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(173) 1.. 2008. 2.. 1992. 1. 2. 3.. 181. 4.. 15. 5.. 1985. 2015. 2013. 9. 6. 6.. 2013. 9. 7.. 2016. 8.. 2012. 9. 3. 1. 67. 2.. 1-38. 2007. 9. 2013 43. 1227-1264. 2014. 11. 3. 17. 173-188. 4.. 2014. 10 85. 166-176. 163. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(174) 2002. 6. 5. 2009. 1. 6.. 10 1-40. 2003. 6. 7. 124 8.. 52-59. 2013. 2. 57 6. 29-61. 62 2016. 12. 9.. 26 77-93. 2014. 4. 10.. 67 81. 2005. 2. 11. 96. 2007. 5. 12.. 63-104 1997. 3. 13.. 201-228 1997. 3. 14. 1. 2017. 3 15.. 101 4. 14. 16.. 41-58. 2013. 55 17-40. 2011. 7. 5. 10 164. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(175) 17. 92. 65-76. 2003. 18.. 24 2013. 1. 29-56. 7. 19.. 56 4. 101-121. 2010. 8. 20. 28-315. 2006. 12. 21. 200. 302-323. 2012. 1. 22. 11. 67-88. 2008. 12. 23. 6. 195-220. 2003. 10. 24. 1. 2013. 7 25. 224. 65-88. 2011. 10. 26. 41. 4. 117-155. 2011. 1. 27. 16. 1-26. 2013. 12. 28. 14. 21-40. 2013. 7. 29.. ─ 31. 101-148. 2009. 6. 165. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(176) 30. 23. 3-49. 2018. 2. 31. 31 2009. 187-225. 6. 32.. 14 2013. 2-20. 7. 33. 10. 67-95. 2007. 12. 34. 30. 6. 604-616. 2011. 35.. 14 1. 2. 37-76. 1985. 6. 36. 1-35. 4. 1. 2008. 37.. 214 135. 2012. 6. 118-. 12. 38. 1-28. 46. 6. 2016. 5. 39. 116. 239-291. 4. 1887-1944. 2010. 8. 40. 44. 2015. 12. 41. 43. 4. 1609-1664. 2014. 12. 166. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(177) 42. 239-270. 2008. 43.. 126 131-157. 2005. 11. 44. 102. 5251. 212-218. 2014. 6. 45. 102. 170. 105. 984. 105. 2018. 133-186. 3. 46.. 59 63-86. 2015. 4. 8. 47.. 47 96-106. 1999. 3. 1. 2012 2. 2015 3. 23-26. 2014. 4. 2018 5. 2014 6.. 2001~2008. 167. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(178) 2009. 1. 1895. 1. 2018. 4. https://www.judicial.gov.tw/jw9706/pdf/20180403-1895-1.pdf 2018. 6. 21. 2.. http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/ 2018. 6. 21. 3.. 2011 2. https://xteam.wwww.com.tw/wp-. content/uploads/2011/02/0214 2018. 6. .pdf. 21. 4.. https://www.ly.gov.tw/Home/Index.aspx 2018. 6. 21. 5.. 5-6. 2013. https://www.space.ntu.edu.tw/navigate/s/DE7ECF1A06BA44D58514F A93E0ED8174QQY. 2018. 6. 21. 6. (94.1.7) https://www.moj.gov.tw/cp-199-61959-79076-001.html 2018. 6. 21. 7. 2009. 8. https://www.moj.gov.tw/cp-60-64633-. 67a3a-001.html. 2018. 6. 21. 8. 2005. 236. 2005/3/1-2 9.. 2005 163-181. 2005/3/1-2. 168. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(179) 10. 2005 1-33. 2005/3/1-2. 1. 1. 2014. 5. 2.. 2012. 5. 1985. 5. 1. 3. 1. 2006. 8. 4.. 1. 5. 1999. 3. 30. 1. 39. 1. 4-13. 1986. 1. 2. 39. 1. 14−20. 1986. 1. 3. 2. 1. 2016. 5 4. 57. 2. 1-30. 1982. 169. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(180) 5.. 、 21. 1. 1992. 1. 。. 10. 6. 1. 1. 2017. 12. 7.. 69 2. 295. 1996. 2. 8. 6 1. 2012. 1. 3. 9. 66. 11. 4-12. 2013. 11. 10. 17. 194-216. 2016. 11. 1. 1. 2016. 5. 12. 21. 1. 2017. 1. 13. 4. 1. 1. 2011. 12. 3-30. 2007. 3. 14. 1. 1. 1. 2011. 9. 15. 705. 16.. ○ 170. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(181) 30. 75-97. 2015. 17. 70 62. 2. 1-. 1994. 18. 5. 1. 1. 2012. 3 19.. 21 (. ). 26-33. 2010. 47. 1. 2. 3. 20. 1. 1. 2017. 12. 21. 87. 38-45. 2015. 6. 22. 1. 33. 265-291. 2015. 10. 23. 54. 26-38. 2017. 24. [. 28.6.24. watch. 20. ]. 215-218. 2017. 25.. 22 89-148. 1990. 4 3. 3. 26. ○ 68 2016. 1. 25-102. 1 171. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(182) 27. 1. 1. 1-12. 2009. 12. 28. 4. 1. 65-88. 2009. 29.. 12. 2005 14. 1. 1. 30.. 2007. 6. 21 1. 1. 2003. 7. 31. 30. 67-94. 2016. 32. 53. 4. 21-27. 2016. 9. 33. 9. 1. 2017. 1. 34.. 54 5. 2017. 35. 14. 1. 211-237. 2015. 3 36. 26. 101−123. 2017. 3. 37. ― 1 2017. 1. 12. 38. ― 172. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(183) 84. 3. 878-845. 2017. 12. 39.. 21 1 2. 1. 1. 2003. 7. 40.. 45 505. 2006. 3. 492-. 4. 41. 1. 1. 1. 2007. 6 42. 1. 1. 36. 43.. 2017. 12. 23. 79-137. 2002 44.. 45 3. 479-491. 2006. 4. 45. 47. 3. 422-437. 2008. 4. 46. 17. 217-225. 47.. 2016. 54 45-54. 2017. 2. 3. 48. 41. 10. 19-26. 1988. 10. 49. 173. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(184) 15 50.. 1. 16-22. 2015. ― 178-224. 51.. 2002. 1. 1. 6. 34-37. 3. ― 2002. 48. 2003. 6. 52. 39. 54-66. 2014. 53. 51. 3. 27-36. 2014. 6. 54. 41. 10. 27-31. 1988. 10. 55. 1 1. 2017. 12. 56. 345. 346. 3924-3950. 2012. 57. 1 650. 2016. 58.. 647-. 11 29 71. 1. 4-13. 2018. 1. 1. http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_kaigiroku.nsf/html/kaigiroku/00 04_l.htm 2.. 2018. 6. 21. ○ 174. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(185) http://www8.cao.go.jp/souki/drug/pdf/know/4_5strategy.pdf 2018. 6. 21. 3. https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/ja/opinion/report/data/060915_2. pdf. 2018. 6. 21. 4. http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000100471.pdf 6. 2018. 21. 5. http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/toukei_ichiran_kensatsu.html 2018. 6. 21. 6. http://www.moj.go.jp/housouken/houso_hakusho2.html 2018. 6. 21. 7.. ~ ~. http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000001612.pdf. 2018. 6. 21. 8.. -. http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000010041.pdf. 2018. 6. 21. 9. http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/kanbou_gyokei_kaigi_index.html 2018. 6. 21. 10. http://www.moj.go.jp/hisho/kouhou/shingikai_hishuyojinin.html 2018 11. LEX. 6. 21. DB. TKC. https://lex.lawlibrary.jp. 2018. 6. 21. 175. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(186) 1.. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive justice. OUP Oxford.. 2.. Baird, C. (2009). A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.. 3.. Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. John Wiley & Sons.. 4.. Blomberg, T., Bales, W., Mann, K., Meldrum, R., & Nedelec, J. (2010). Validation of the COMPAS risk assessment classification instrument. College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.. 5.. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.. 6.. Ericson, R. V., Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Clarendon Studies in Criminolo.. 7.. Guetzkow, J., & Western, B. (2007). Remaking America: Democracy and public policy in an age of inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.. 8.. Harcourt, B. E. (2008). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press.. 9.. Harris, A., Phenix, A., Thornton, D., & Hanson, R. K. (2003). Static99, coding Rules Revised, 2003. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada.. 10. Kelly, W. R. (2016). The future of crime and punishment: Smart 176. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(187) policies for reducing crime and saving money. Rowman & Littlefield. 11. McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory and action. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). 12. Robinson, G., & Crow, I. D. (2009). Offender rehabilitation: Theory, research and practice. Sage. 13. Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C. (1994). Changing for good. New York: Avon Books. 14. Singh, J. P., Kroner, D. G., Desmarais, S. L., Wormith, J. S., & Hamilton, Z. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools. John Wiley & Sons. 15. Tonry, M. H. (2016). Sentencing fragments: Penal reform in America, 1975-2025. Oxford University Press. 16. Von Hirsch, A., Committee for the Study of Incarceration (Etats-Unis), & Gaylin, W. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. 17. Von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and sanctions. Oxford: Clarendon press.. 1.. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19-52.. 2.. Belfrage, H., Fransson, R., & Strand, S. (2000). Prediction of violence using the HCR-20: A prospective study in two maximum-security correctional institutions. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11(1), 167-175.. 3.. Bierschbach, R. A., & Bibas, S. (2016). What's Wrong with Sentencing Equality?. Virginia Law Review, 1447-1522.. 4.. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart's model of human needs. Psychology Crime and Law, 9(3), 177. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(188) 215-218. 5.. Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal justice and behavior, 38(11), 1127-1148.. 6.. Botnick, C. (2015). Evidence-Based Practice and Sentencing in State Courts: A Critique of the Missouri System. Wash. UJL & Pol'y, 49, 159.. 7.. Canton, R. (2014). Yes, no, possibly, maybe: Community sanctions, consent and cooperation. European Journal of Probation, 6(3), 209224.. 8.. Carter, R. M. (1967). The presentence report and the decision-making process. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4(2), 203-211.. 9.. Chalmers, I. (2003). Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: the role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 22-40.. 10. Cole, K. (1996). Empty Idea of Sentencing Disparity. Nw. UL Rev., 91, 1336. 11. Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2010). Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice. Law and human behavior, 34(4), 259-274. 12. Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 48S-65S. 13. Doob, A. N., & Cesaroni, C. (2001). The political attractiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. Osgoode Hall LJ, 39, 287. 14. Douglas, K. S., & Webster, C. D. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(1), 3-19. 178. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(189) 15. Doyle, M., & Dolan, M. (2002). Violence risk assessment: combining actuarial and clinical information to structure clinical judgements for the formulation and management of risk. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 9(6), 649-657. 16. Elbogen, E. B. (2002). The process of violence risk assessment: A review of descriptive research. Aggression and Violent behavior, 7(6), 591-604. 17. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1992). Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Jama, 268(17), 2420-2425. 18. Farrar-Owens, M. (2013). The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Virginia: an example of the importance of standardized and automated felony sentencing data. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25(3), 168-170. 19. Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh B. C. (2002). The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. Evidence-based crime prevention, 13-21. 20. Fass, T. L., Heilbrun, K., Dematteo, D., & Fretz, R. (2008). The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation data on two risk-needs tools. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1095-1108. 21. Gilpin, A. (2012). The impact of mandatory minimum and truth-insentencing laws and their relation to English sentencing policies. Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 29, 91. 22. Hamilton, M. (2015). Back to the Future: The Influence of Criminal History on Risk Assessments. Berkeley J. Crim. L., 20, 75. 23. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2013). Actuarial sentencing: An “unsettled” proposition. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 270-296. 24. Hannah-Moffat, K., & Maurutto, P. (2010). Re-contextualizing presentence reports: Risk and race. Punishment & Society, 12(3), 262-286. 25. Hart, S. D., & Cooke, D. J. (2013). Another look at the (Im-) precision of individual risk estimates made using actuarial risk assessment 179. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.

(190) instruments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(1), 81-102. 26. Hyatt, J. M., Chanenson, S. L., & Bergstrom, M. H. (2011). Reform in Motion: The Promise and Perils of Incorporating Risk Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analysis into Pennsylvania Sentencing. Duq. L. Rev., 49, 707. 27. Jones, P. R. (1996). Risk prediction in criminal justice. Choosing correctional options that work, 33-68. 28. Kern, R. P., & Farrar-Owens, M. (2004). Sentencing guidelines with integrated offender risk assessment. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16(3), 165-169. 29. Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13(1), 81-106. 30. Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. (2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide. Victims and Offenders, 5(3), 203219. 31. Lindsay, W. R., & Beail, N. (2004). Risk assessment: Actuarial prediction and clinical judgement of offending incidents and behaviour for intellectual disability services. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(4), 229-234. 32. Lipton, D. S., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. (2002). The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural treatment methods on offender recidivism. Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending, 79-112. 33. MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Reducing the criminal activities of known offenders and delinquents: Crime prevention in the courts and corrections. Evidence-based crime prevention, 330-404. 34. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? –Questions and answers about prison reform. The public interest, (35), 22. 35. Martinson, R. (1978). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra L. Rev., 7, 243. 180. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.029.2018.F10.