| 關 鍵 詞： |
保安處分；驅逐出境；刑罰；廣義的司法行政處分；外國人 |
| 中文摘要： |
刑法保安處分，近年來成為修法焦點，同時也是特別預防中，再犯危險性重要之風險評估工具；但其中第95 條驅逐出境處分，無論在條文要件、實踐方式或適用對象上，均未若其他保安處分亮眼奪目，且除刑法、保安處分執行法、少年事件處理法外，與入出國及移民法「驅逐出國」、外國護照簽證條例「驅逐出境」、臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例及香港澳門關係條例「強制出境」、就業服務法「強制出國」等行政處分，均能與刑法「驅逐出境」達到相同之法律效果，容有高度疊床架屋之處並從廣義的司法行政處分進行思辨；此外，從法院實務見解探討驅逐出境個案之適用情形發現，該處分完全是一種隔離作用而非改善犯人，徒具消極性之強制離境，只有審查具外國人身分者「是否繼續居留國內之適宜性」，與原本其他保安處分設計之立意悖離甚遠，進而建議刑法第 95 條驅逐出境處分或可基於刑法謙抑性思想，朝向於刑事立法政策上「去處分」化之可能性，並於外國人執行刑後，驅逐出境處分統一遞移由專責入出境事務之行政主管機關執行，同時配合建構適法性、必要性及合乎比例之「門診（內）－急診（外）」之即時審查救濟機制，以符事權及明確性原則並保障人權。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Rehabilitative Measures；Deportation；Penalty；Judicial Administrative Disposition in a Broad Sense；Alien |
| 英文摘要： |
The rehabilitative measures of the criminal law have become the focus of legislative amendments in recent years. They are also an important risk assessment tool for measuring the risk of recidivism in special prevention. However, the deportation in Article 95 is not as eye-catching as other rehabilitative measures in terms of the provisions, implementation methods, or applicable objects. In addition to the Criminal Law, the Rehabilitative Disposition Execution Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act, administrative dispositions such as the “deportation” in the Immigration Act, the “deportation” in the Statute Governing Issuance of R.O.C. Visas in Foreign Passports, the “deportation” in the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area and the Act Governing Relations with Hong Kong and Macau, and the “deportation” in the Employment Service Act can achieve the same legal effect as the “deportation” in the criminal law, and there is a high degree of overlap. This article will also discuss the broad sense of judicial administrative disposition. In addition, from the perspective of court practice, the application of deportation in individual cases has revealed that the punishment is completely a kind of isolation rather than improvement of the offender, and is merely a passive forced departure. The deportation in the criminal law only examines the “suitability of a foreigner to continue to reside in the country”, which is far from the original intention of other rehabilitative measures. This article suggests that the deportation in Article 95 of the Criminal Law may be based on the decline-restraint principle, and move towards the possibility of “de-rehabilitative measures” in criminal legislative policy. After the foreign national has completed the execution of his or her sentence, the authority to order and enforce deportation shall be uniformly transferred to the administrative authority in charge of immigration affairs. This institutional redesign should be accompanied by the establishment of a real-time review and remedy mechanism- structured as an “outpatient (internal) - emergency (external)” model-to assess legality, necessity, and proportionality. Such a mechanism would ensure coherence in the allocation of authority, enhance legal clarity, and provide effective protection of fundamental human rights.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、適用、性質與爭議探討
參、與廣義的司法行政處分關聯
肆、從實務見解探討個案之適用情形
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|