After the preventive detention system was revised in 1997, it was widely questioned by many scholars. However, observations in comparative law revealed that the legal systems in Germany and the United States, which are very similar to Taiwan’s original Code of Criminal Procedure, were also questioned. Ultimately, however, all were constitutionally upheld and continued to expand in scope. By investigating the reasons for the continued existence of a preventive detention system, it was found that the choice for preventive detention was colored by criminal policy. By observing the development of US criminal policy, which greatly influenced Taiwan’s criminal policy developments, it is known that when facing contentions regarding social resources and crime control failures, a strong sense of insecurity permeates society, thus causing the country to gradually move from penal welfarism to penal populism in order to reduce insecurity. Compared to the United States, Taiwanese society entered into a state of disorder and confusion, as well as rising crime rates, due to new freedoms following the sudden removal of martial law, thereby prompting Taiwan to more rapidly and comprehensively promote penal populism. "No discretionary discharge of offenders" and "active crime control by the country" became the best choices. In addition, it also supported the unshakeable presence of a preventive detention system in our country, even though it had always been criticized. With developments in the preventive detention system thus far, achieving its total abolition is not realistic. This paper argues that finding a balance between "the laws under human rights protection" and "criminal policy" will be the most optimal method.

資料來源:http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/84669139138265749215