1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 法學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 刑事案件量刑調查之研究 -以英美相關制度為中心
A Research on Sentencing Investigation in Criminal Procedure – Center on the systems of the US and the UK.
作者 嚴蕙溱
貢獻者 謝如媛
嚴蕙溱
關鍵詞 量刑調查
量刑前調查
量刑調查官
量刑調查報告
量刑
日期 2017
上傳時間 13-九月-2017 14:56:03 (UTC+8)
摘要 我國現今刑事案件程序多重定罪而輕忽量刑程序，導致人民無從得知法院擇定量刑的心證，量刑不透明，以致於出現量刑不公的聲音。雖我國刑事訴訟法第289條第4項有明文規範，法院應給予雙方當事人就科刑範圍表示意見，看似已經充分保障其參與量刑程序之可能，惟，審判實務上是否此一規定已淪為形式，非無疑問。
、
而針對死刑案件，最高法院認為需要進行量刑辯論，透過量刑辯論的方式，可以知悉被告是否確實罪無可逭、無教化之可能，惟本文認為量刑辯論需要充分的量刑佐證資料，才可順利進行，因此，本文欲討論如何充實量刑佐證資料，而使法院可做出適當的判決，本文參考英美獨立的量刑程序中特有的量刑調查制度，即由專責的調查官製作量刑調查報告，以提供犯罪人之充分資訊，雙方當事人會針對報告內容加以辯論，此份報告使提供法院作為量刑參考依據，以決定最適合的刑罰，本文建議可將此制度引入我國訴訟程序中，透過調查官的調查報告，提供法院更充實的量刑資訊，有助於法院的量刑判斷。
The criminal trial procedure in Taiwan in present days often focus on sentencing but neglect of sentencing procedure, result in the judicial discretion not revealing to the public, so that appears the voice of sentencing injustice. Although the paragraph 4, article 289 of Taiwan’s Code of Criminal Procedure rules that the presiding judge shall provide the parties with opportunities to state opinions regarding sentencing, which seems sufficient for both parties to participant in the sentencing procedure, but there is still doubt that the practice of this regulation is just pro forma.

Aiming on death penalty cases, in the supreme court’s opinion, it is necessary to carry out a sentencing debate, by going through the sentencing debate, the court understands if the defendant is truly unforgivable and uneducable. In the author’s perspective, a sentencing debate requires sufficient supporting information to be performed smoothly. This thesis wants to discuss how to enrich the supporting information, thus making the court able to judge appropriately. The thesis will reference to the unique “Presentencing” system in the US/UK’s independent sentencing procedure, which a specifically responsible investigation officer will create a presentence investigation report, offering sufficient information of the defendant, both parties will debate over the report, and the report will be provided to the court for reference in sentencing, to aid the judge in determining the most suitable verdict. The thesis suggest that the presentencing system can be introduced to Taiwan’s criminal procedure, helping the court’s judgement in sentencing by delivering the presentencing report produced by investigation officer.
參考文獻 中文文獻
一、專書
1. 劉作揖，少年觀護工作，五南，2007年3月。
2. 陳慈幸、蔡孟凌，元照，少年事件處理法學理與實務，2009年8月。
3. 林鈺雄，新刑法總論，元照，2016年9月。
4. 蔡墩銘，刑法總論，三民，2013年8月。
5. 袁方，社會研究方法，五南，2002年。
6. 王兆鵬，美國刑事訴訟法，元照，2004年9月
7. 王兆鵬、陳運財、林俊益、宋耀明、張熙懷、葉建廷、丁中原合著，傳聞法則理論與實踐，元照，2003年9月。
二、期刊論文
1. 劉邦繡，生死判決與教化矯正合理期待可能之糾葛-從最高法院幾則生死判決改判案例談起，月旦裁判時報，2015年10月。
2. 康黎，英美法系國家的量刑調查制度，法令月刊，2012年4月。
3. 林彥良，刑事政策及量刑歷程之研究－以竊盜罪為例，中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文，2008年6月。
4. 林儹紘，從社會復歸觀點論長刑期之受刑人處遇，國立中正大學法律系碩士論文，2008年。
5. 林俊益，傳聞法則之研究，台灣高等法院九十一年度研究發展項目研究報告。
6. 司法院，民刑事訴訟新制論文集，2002年12月。
7. 吳巡龍，鑑定與專家證人，台灣法學雜誌，2010年6月。
8. 何賴傑，偵查程序強制辯護之指定及違法效果—以德國刑事訴訟法為觀察重點（上），政大法學評論，2009年9月。
9. 謝如媛，犯罪被害人陳述制度之成效-從英國實證研究結果出發，法學新論，2011年6月。
英文文獻
1. J P Storm , What United States Probation Officers Do, Federal Probation, 61 Fed. Probation 13 (1997)
2. Federal Sentencing: The Basics, UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION (2015)
3. T Bakken, The Continued Failure of Modern Law to Create Fairness and Efficiency: The Presentence Investigation Report and Its Effect on Justice, 40 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 363 (1996)
4. Philip Whitehead, The Probation Service Reporting For Duty: Court Reports And Social Justice, British Journal of Community Justice, Volume 6, Issue 3(2008)
5. Garo, theoretical and practical studies on penal law, translated by Sayyid Zyaoddin Neqab, Tehran, newspaper center of Iran(1970)
6. Saeed Gohari、Amir Kondori、Mohammad Mehdipour、Abozar Ahmadi, A Consideration on Individualization of Punishments and Securing Provisional and Educational Plans, International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(6)(2013)
7. Călin BERAR，THE INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENT ACCORDING TO THE NEW CRIMINAL CODE, International Conference "Recent Advances in Economic and Social Research"(2015)
8. Raymond Saleilles, The Individualization of　Punishment, Translated from the second French edition by　RACHEL SZOLD JASTROW(1911)
9. CRIMINAL SENTENCING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT Best Practices for Individualized Evidence-Based Sentencing ,Superior Court Working Group on Sentencing Best Practices(2016)。
10. B FuLTON, UP TO SPEED A Review of Research for Practitioners, Volume 64 Number 1, FEDERAL PROBATION(2001)
11. Jill Annison Tina Eadie Charlotte Knight, People First: probation officer Perspectives on Probation Work, Probation Journal, Volume: 55 issue: 3 (2008)
12. John T. Whitehead, probation officer job burnout: A Test of two theories, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 15 (1987)
13. Charles Lindner、Richard J. Koehler ,Probation officer victimization: An emerging concern, Volume 20, Issue 1, ,Journal of Criminal Justice(1992)
14. The presentence investigation report, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Administrative Office of the United States Courts(2006)
15. Paul W. Keve, The probation officer investigated-a guide to presentence report, University of Minnesota Press(1960)
16. Todd R. Clear、Val B. Clear、William D. Burrell, Offender Assessment And Evaluation-The Presentence Report
17. Megan E. Burns, The Presentence Interview and the Right to Counsel: A Critical Stage Under the Federal Sentencing Structure, 34 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 527 (1993)
18. Erry d. Denzlinger and David e. miller, The Federal Probation Officer: Life Before and After Guideline Sentencing, 55 Fed. Probation 49(1991)
19. Chester J. Kulis, Profit in the Private Presentence Report47 Fed. Probation 11 (1983)
20. Hoelter, Herbert J, Private Presentence Reports: Boon or Boondoggle,Federal Probation, Vol 48(3)(1984)
21. Herbert Hoelte, The Private Presentence Report: Issues for Consideration(1985)
22. Gary M. MaveaP, Federal Presentence Reports: multi-tasking at sentencing, Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 2,(1996)
23. Jacob B. Barnett and David H. Gronewold, Confidentiality of the Presentence Report, 26 Fed. Probation 26(1962)
24. Lehrich, Use and Disclosure of Presentence Reports in the United States, 47F.R.D. 225, 238 (1969)
25. John P. Higgins, Confidentiality of presentence reports, 28 Alb. L. Rev. 12 (1964)
26. Fennell & Hall, Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts, 93 HARV. L. REv. 1613, 1627 n.58 (1980).
27. Philip l. Dubois, Disclosure of Presentence Reports in the United States District Courts, 45 Fed. Probation 3 (1981)
28. Meg Garvin、Sarah LeClair,S、Terry L. Campos、Rebecca S.T.、Amy C. Liu、Alison Wilkinson, Victim Access to the Presentence Investigation Report in Federal Prosecutions, Victim Law Bulletin(2011)
29. Douglas E. Beloof, Constitutional Implications of Crime Victims as Participants, 88 Cornell L.,Rev. 282, 289 n.51 (2003)
30. Matthew B. Riley, Victim Participation In the Criminal Justice system: inre kenna and victim access to presentence reports, Utah Law Review(2006)
 
網路參考資料
1. 司改會法庭觀察， https://www.jrf.org.tw/articles/718
2. 「八里雙屍命案　心理鑑定謝依涵「再犯可能性低」，http://www.nownews.com/n/2016/12/02/2326029
3. 「謝依涵心理鑑定報告：友善、具同理心、非典型罪犯」， http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1944402
4. 「《鑑定報告》想教化鄭捷「不容易」， http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/850887
5. The History of the Pre-sentence Investigation Report，http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_history.pdf
6. 美國聯邦刑事訴訟規則第32條之具體規範，https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32
7. 18 U.S. Code § 3552 - Presentence reports，https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3552
8. Massachusetts - Criminal Procedure Rule 28: Judgment，http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/rules-of-court/criminal-procedure/crim28.html
9. 英國刑事司法法(Criminal Justice Act 2003)，http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/contents
10. A working life: The probation officer，https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/aug/21/probation-officer-working-life
11. https://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers/job-profile/probation-officer
12. http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/probation-and-pretrial-services/probation-and-pretrial-officers-and-officer
13. http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/probation-and-pretrial-services/probation-and-pretrial-officers-and-officer
14. http://agency.governmentjobs.com/sdcounty/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=80806&agency=1408&viewOnly=yes
15. http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/federal-probation-officer-careers/
16. http://study.com/probation_officer_requirements.htm
17. https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
18. https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
19. http://www.criminaljusticedegreeschools.com/criminal-justice-careers/probation-officer/
20. https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-USD
21. http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1680729/
22. https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
99651051
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0996510511
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 謝如媛zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) 嚴蕙溱zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 嚴蕙溱zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 13-九月-2017 14:56:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 13-九月-2017 14:56:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 13-九月-2017 14:56:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0996510511en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112698-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 法律學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 99651051zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 我國現今刑事案件程序多重定罪而輕忽量刑程序，導致人民無從得知法院擇定量刑的心證，量刑不透明，以致於出現量刑不公的聲音。雖我國刑事訴訟法第289條第4項有明文規範，法院應給予雙方當事人就科刑範圍表示意見，看似已經充分保障其參與量刑程序之可能，惟，審判實務上是否此一規定已淪為形式，非無疑問。
、
而針對死刑案件，最高法院認為需要進行量刑辯論，透過量刑辯論的方式，可以知悉被告是否確實罪無可逭、無教化之可能，惟本文認為量刑辯論需要充分的量刑佐證資料，才可順利進行，因此，本文欲討論如何充實量刑佐證資料，而使法院可做出適當的判決，本文參考英美獨立的量刑程序中特有的量刑調查制度，即由專責的調查官製作量刑調查報告，以提供犯罪人之充分資訊，雙方當事人會針對報告內容加以辯論，此份報告使提供法院作為量刑參考依據，以決定最適合的刑罰，本文建議可將此制度引入我國訴訟程序中，透過調查官的調查報告，提供法院更充實的量刑資訊，有助於法院的量刑判斷。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The criminal trial procedure in Taiwan in present days often focus on sentencing but neglect of sentencing procedure, result in the judicial discretion not revealing to the public, so that appears the voice of sentencing injustice. Although the paragraph 4, article 289 of Taiwan’s Code of Criminal Procedure rules that the presiding judge shall provide the parties with opportunities to state opinions regarding sentencing, which seems sufficient for both parties to participant in the sentencing procedure, but there is still doubt that the practice of this regulation is just pro forma.

Aiming on death penalty cases, in the supreme court’s opinion, it is necessary to carry out a sentencing debate, by going through the sentencing debate, the court understands if the defendant is truly unforgivable and uneducable. In the author’s perspective, a sentencing debate requires sufficient supporting information to be performed smoothly. This thesis wants to discuss how to enrich the supporting information, thus making the court able to judge appropriately. The thesis will reference to the unique “Presentencing” system in the US/UK’s independent sentencing procedure, which a specifically responsible investigation officer will create a presentence investigation report, offering sufficient information of the defendant, both parties will debate over the report, and the report will be provided to the court for reference in sentencing, to aid the judge in determining the most suitable verdict. The thesis suggest that the presentencing system can be introduced to Taiwan’s criminal procedure, helping the court’s judgement in sentencing by delivering the presentencing report produced by investigation officer.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 5
第一章、緒論 6
第一節、研究動機及問題意識 7
第二節、研究方法及範圍 8
第三節、本文架構 9
第二章、我國現行量刑調查實務 11
第一節、現行成人案件關於量刑調查之規定 11
第一項、刑法第57條 11
第二項、刑事訴訟法第288條第4項 16
第三項、刑事訴訟法第289條 18
第二節、刑事案件量刑改革方向 21
第一項、最高法院死刑言詞辯論案件 30
第二項、近期重大矚目刑事案件判決分析 33
第三項、近期最高法院死刑案件量刑審理趨勢觀察 39
第四項、死刑案件之量刑調查程序之改革 40
第三節、少年事件審前調查之實踐 41
第一項、少年觀護之意義 41
第二項、少年觀護處遇前之調查工作 42
第三項、小結 45
第三章、英美成人刑事案件量刑調查制度之探討 46
第一節、量刑調查制度之概覽 46
第一項、制度概述 46
第二項、量刑調查報告之態樣 47
第三項、制度目的 54
第四項、法源基礎 61
第二節、量刑調查之主體 68
第一項、英美量刑調查官(probation officer)之職權 68
第二項、調查官的資格及待遇 71
第三節、調查官目前面臨的問題 74
第一項、工作壓力 74
第二項、人身安全 75
第四節、私人調查報告之興起 77
第一項、私人調查報告的濫觴 77
第二項、私人報告中調查員之能力資格 78
第三項、私人調查報告之挑戰 79
第四項、本文見解 81
第五節、量刑調查之案件適用類型 82
第一項、美國聯邦刑事訴訟法之規定 82
第二項、美國各州有關量刑調查之適用案件類型 83
第三項、英國量刑調查之適用案件類型 84
第六節、開啟量刑調查之時點 85
第一項、英美國家量刑程序概述 85
第二項、量刑調查開始時點 87
第三項、認罪協商對量刑調查之影響 89
第七節、量刑調查程序及範圍 92
第一項、調查程序 92
第二項、調查方法及技巧 94
第三項、調查範圍內容 95
第四項、各調查項目影響量刑的情形 99
第五項、小結 104
第四章、英美量刑調查制度若干問題探討 105
第一節、量刑準則出現對於調查報告的影響 105
第一項、在量刑準則出現之前 105
第二項、量刑準則產生的影響 107
第三項、本文見解 111
第二節、量刑調查對於隱私之處理 114
第一項、量刑調查涉及隱私之處理(揭露及保密問題) 114
第二項、關於調查報告揭露的現行法律規定 123
第三項、本文見解 125
第三節、被害人與量刑調查程序之關係 126
第一項、被害人保護議題興起背景 126
第二項、被害人在量刑階段的權利 128
第三項、被害人在量刑調查中之角色及權利 130
第四項、本文見解 134
第四節、量刑調查報告(pre-sentencing report)性質 136
第一項、傳聞法則之適用可能 137
第二項、量刑調查報告與專家意見 140
第五章、建議與結論 144
第一節、我國量刑程序引入調查制度之可能 144
第一項、現行量刑制度可能存在的問題 144
第二項、專家作為量刑調查主體之正當性 147
第三項、量刑調查改革建議 149
第二節、結論 153
參考文獻 156
附錄一 162
附錄二 172		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2470071 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0996510511en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 量刑調查zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 量刑前調查zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 量刑調查官zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 量刑調查報告zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 量刑zh_TW
dc.title (題名) 刑事案件量刑調查之研究 -以英美相關制度為中心zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Research on Sentencing Investigation in Criminal Procedure – Center on the systems of the US and the UK.en_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
一、專書
1. 劉作揖，少年觀護工作，五南，2007年3月。
2. 陳慈幸、蔡孟凌，元照，少年事件處理法學理與實務，2009年8月。
3. 林鈺雄，新刑法總論，元照，2016年9月。
4. 蔡墩銘，刑法總論，三民，2013年8月。
5. 袁方，社會研究方法，五南，2002年。
6. 王兆鵬，美國刑事訴訟法，元照，2004年9月
7. 王兆鵬、陳運財、林俊益、宋耀明、張熙懷、葉建廷、丁中原合著，傳聞法則理論與實踐，元照，2003年9月。
二、期刊論文
1. 劉邦繡，生死判決與教化矯正合理期待可能之糾葛-從最高法院幾則生死判決改判案例談起，月旦裁判時報，2015年10月。
2. 康黎，英美法系國家的量刑調查制度，法令月刊，2012年4月。
3. 林彥良，刑事政策及量刑歷程之研究－以竊盜罪為例，中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文，2008年6月。
4. 林儹紘，從社會復歸觀點論長刑期之受刑人處遇，國立中正大學法律系碩士論文，2008年。
5. 林俊益，傳聞法則之研究，台灣高等法院九十一年度研究發展項目研究報告。
6. 司法院，民刑事訴訟新制論文集，2002年12月。
7. 吳巡龍，鑑定與專家證人，台灣法學雜誌，2010年6月。
8. 何賴傑，偵查程序強制辯護之指定及違法效果—以德國刑事訴訟法為觀察重點（上），政大法學評論，2009年9月。
9. 謝如媛，犯罪被害人陳述制度之成效-從英國實證研究結果出發，法學新論，2011年6月。
英文文獻
1. J P Storm , What United States Probation Officers Do, Federal Probation, 61 Fed. Probation 13 (1997)
2. Federal Sentencing: The Basics, UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION (2015)
3. T Bakken, The Continued Failure of Modern Law to Create Fairness and Efficiency: The Presentence Investigation Report and Its Effect on Justice, 40 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 363 (1996)
4. Philip Whitehead, The Probation Service Reporting For Duty: Court Reports And Social Justice, British Journal of Community Justice, Volume 6, Issue 3(2008)
5. Garo, theoretical and practical studies on penal law, translated by Sayyid Zyaoddin Neqab, Tehran, newspaper center of Iran(1970)
6. Saeed Gohari、Amir Kondori、Mohammad Mehdipour、Abozar Ahmadi, A Consideration on Individualization of Punishments and Securing Provisional and Educational Plans, International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(6)(2013)
7. Călin BERAR，THE INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENT ACCORDING TO THE NEW CRIMINAL CODE, International Conference "Recent Advances in Economic and Social Research"(2015)
8. Raymond Saleilles, The Individualization of　Punishment, Translated from the second French edition by　RACHEL SZOLD JASTROW(1911)
9. CRIMINAL SENTENCING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT Best Practices for Individualized Evidence-Based Sentencing ,Superior Court Working Group on Sentencing Best Practices(2016)。
10. B FuLTON, UP TO SPEED A Review of Research for Practitioners, Volume 64 Number 1, FEDERAL PROBATION(2001)
11. Jill Annison Tina Eadie Charlotte Knight, People First: probation officer Perspectives on Probation Work, Probation Journal, Volume: 55 issue: 3 (2008)
12. John T. Whitehead, probation officer job burnout: A Test of two theories, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 15 (1987)
13. Charles Lindner、Richard J. Koehler ,Probation officer victimization: An emerging concern, Volume 20, Issue 1, ,Journal of Criminal Justice(1992)
14. The presentence investigation report, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Administrative Office of the United States Courts(2006)
15. Paul W. Keve, The probation officer investigated-a guide to presentence report, University of Minnesota Press(1960)
16. Todd R. Clear、Val B. Clear、William D. Burrell, Offender Assessment And Evaluation-The Presentence Report
17. Megan E. Burns, The Presentence Interview and the Right to Counsel: A Critical Stage Under the Federal Sentencing Structure, 34 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 527 (1993)
18. Erry d. Denzlinger and David e. miller, The Federal Probation Officer: Life Before and After Guideline Sentencing, 55 Fed. Probation 49(1991)
19. Chester J. Kulis, Profit in the Private Presentence Report47 Fed. Probation 11 (1983)
20. Hoelter, Herbert J, Private Presentence Reports: Boon or Boondoggle,Federal Probation, Vol 48(3)(1984)
21. Herbert Hoelte, The Private Presentence Report: Issues for Consideration(1985)
22. Gary M. MaveaP, Federal Presentence Reports: multi-tasking at sentencing, Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 2,(1996)
23. Jacob B. Barnett and David H. Gronewold, Confidentiality of the Presentence Report, 26 Fed. Probation 26(1962)
24. Lehrich, Use and Disclosure of Presentence Reports in the United States, 47F.R.D. 225, 238 (1969)
25. John P. Higgins, Confidentiality of presentence reports, 28 Alb. L. Rev. 12 (1964)
26. Fennell & Hall, Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts, 93 HARV. L. REv. 1613, 1627 n.58 (1980).
27. Philip l. Dubois, Disclosure of Presentence Reports in the United States District Courts, 45 Fed. Probation 3 (1981)
28. Meg Garvin、Sarah LeClair,S、Terry L. Campos、Rebecca S.T.、Amy C. Liu、Alison Wilkinson, Victim Access to the Presentence Investigation Report in Federal Prosecutions, Victim Law Bulletin(2011)
29. Douglas E. Beloof, Constitutional Implications of Crime Victims as Participants, 88 Cornell L.,Rev. 282, 289 n.51 (2003)
30. Matthew B. Riley, Victim Participation In the Criminal Justice system: inre kenna and victim access to presentence reports, Utah Law Review(2006)
 
網路參考資料
1. 司改會法庭觀察， https://www.jrf.org.tw/articles/718
2. 「八里雙屍命案　心理鑑定謝依涵「再犯可能性低」，http://www.nownews.com/n/2016/12/02/2326029
3. 「謝依涵心理鑑定報告：友善、具同理心、非典型罪犯」， http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1944402
4. 「《鑑定報告》想教化鄭捷「不容易」， http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/850887
5. The History of the Pre-sentence Investigation Report，http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_history.pdf
6. 美國聯邦刑事訴訟規則第32條之具體規範，https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32
7. 18 U.S. Code § 3552 - Presentence reports，https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3552
8. Massachusetts - Criminal Procedure Rule 28: Judgment，http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/rules-of-court/criminal-procedure/crim28.html
9. 英國刑事司法法(Criminal Justice Act 2003)，http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/contents
10. A working life: The probation officer，https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/aug/21/probation-officer-working-life
11. https://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers/job-profile/probation-officer
12. http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/probation-and-pretrial-services/probation-and-pretrial-officers-and-officer
13. http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/probation-and-pretrial-services/probation-and-pretrial-officers-and-officer
14. http://agency.governmentjobs.com/sdcounty/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=80806&agency=1408&viewOnly=yes
15. http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/federal-probation-officer-careers/
16. http://study.com/probation_officer_requirements.htm
17. https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
18. https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
19. http://www.criminaljusticedegreeschools.com/criminal-justice-careers/probation-officer/
20. https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-USD
21. http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1680729/
22. https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act		zh_TW