中文摘要：

為了尋求在風險評估、管理當道的刑罰政策下，協助危險犯罪人復歸社會的方法，本文以英格蘭與威爾斯的新興危險犯罪人法案作為主要觀察對象。在了解危險犯罪人法案如何操作風險工具進行篩選、分級危險犯罪人，並給予不同密度的監禁、隔離措施，以及施行後實務所面臨的問題，特別是危險評估的困難後，本文試圖了解英格蘭與威爾斯在實務運作上是如何進行抵抗、避免完全適用新政策的對策，以求取繼續對犯罪人施以支援、社會復歸面向的服務空間。
藉由觀察英格蘭與威爾斯的觀護實務，可以發現風險政策尚未完全落實，由刑罰福利時代培育出的實務人員仍舊嘗試以其自身認同的工作價值，去理解、轉化風險話語，進而產生政策與實務上的實踐落差，讓新刑罰學所預示的廢物管理、倉儲路線難以實現。然而實務人員處於新舊政策的交界處，角色衝突的壓力仍可能逼迫實務人員去順應新政策的動向，因此本文在確認近期的復歸理論及處遇模式發展方向之後，認為有必要重新檢討現行主流的處遇模式，並且尋求在現行政策框架下，利用既有的控制、降低犯罪人再犯風險的處遇外觀，而得以施展犯罪人權利本位的復歸處遇的可能性。最後則是帶著前述的觀察及反思，回頭審視我國的制度及實務面向，提出本文的建議。

英文摘要：

In order to seek strategies for the rehabilitation of dangerous offenders under the penal policy which relies on risk assessment and management instruments, this article mainly observes the dangerous offender legislation in England and Wales. After understanding how the dangerous offender legislation exerts different degrees of control over dangerous offenders by selecting and classifying them via risk instruments, and some problems occurred in practice after the legislation is implemented, this article manages to figure out what kind of resistant strategies the judicial officers and probation officers use to avoid making new policy work smoothly in England and Wales, in order to keep space for support and rehabilitation services which officers could deliver before new policy.
By observing probation practice, we can find that risk policy was implemented incompletely. Those officers trained in the penal-welfare era keep trying to understand and transform risk in their own way to match their personal and work values, producing a gap between policy and practice and making it hard for the waste management model to come true. However, the conflict between officers’ role in traditional and new policy would probably force them to obey new policy goals. Therefore, after confirming recent development trend of the rehabilitation theory and treatment model, this article recognizes that it is necessary to rethink the mainstream treatment model and seek right-based rehabilitation strategies under the risk management policy framework. In the end, the author reviews the policy and practice in Taiwan with the above examinations and reflections, and some suggestions are made.

文章連結：

https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0001-1608201800324000

資料來源：

華藝線上圖書館