學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 毒品法庭的批判性考察
A Critical Analysis of Drug Courts作者 林俊儒
Lin, Jun Ru貢獻者 謝如媛
Hsieh, Ju Yuan
林俊儒
Lin, Jun Ru關鍵詞 毒品法庭
問題解決型法庭
治療式司法
合作式司法
刑事法庭
施用毒品罪
病患型犯人
緩起訴
緩刑
戒癮治療
特別預防
醫療人權
Drug court
Problem-solving court
Therapeutic justice
Collaborative justice
Criminal court
Drug use
Patient and prisoner
Deferred prosecution
Suspended sentence
Addiction treatment
Special prevention
Rights of patients and health care日期 2018 上傳時間 9-Apr-2018 15:55:00 (UTC+8) 摘要 毒品法庭自美國發展而逐漸影響世界各地，甚至成為台灣修法倡議，是晚近刑事政策的重要議題。為深入了解毒品法庭，除介紹制度的發展概況與具體內涵外，尚將進一步考掘歷史成因及改革困境，並從制度構造及程序法理的二方面剖析其所引發的爭議。最後，將問題帶回台灣，在透過實證數據理解實務現況的基礎上，將改革情勢與制度問題脈絡化進行比較研究，試圖從刑事政策的觀點提出評價性建議，以作為台灣毒品施用者處遇的策進方向。毒品法庭於其權限範圍內，避免對於毒品施用者施加刑罰，而改採治療的態度與方法，促使其參與以治療為主、多元且細緻的處遇。在此同時，也視其表現給予懲罰或獎勵，進行嚴密監督以強化治療義務的要求，加深毒品施用者兼具病人與犯人身分的矛盾。另一方面，程序轉為合作、案主導向、問題解決，則與以往對抗、案件導向、真實發現有別。藉此反思台灣毒品施用者處遇，重要的毋寧是檢討制度的各種爭議，以及其背後所顯示的刑事政策的價值選擇。
Drug Courts that have risen from development in the United States have had a gradual influence on the rest of the world, and have even been amended into Taiwanese law. This has been an important issue in recent discussions of criminal policy. In order to understand Drug Courts in detail, this article first introduces the background and the contents of the system, and then explores historical causes and reform dilemmas. It then analyzes the issue from the perspective of institutional structure and procedural legal principles. To then focus the issue back on Taiwan, on the basis of understanding the current state of practice through empirical data, a comparative study of the context of reform and institutional issues is conducted. Finally, this article will attempt to put forward a proposal for an evaluation from the perspective of criminal policy as a strategy for dealing with drug addicts in Taiwan.Within its jurisdiction, the Drug Court will avoid applying penalties to drug users, and instead adopt attitudes and methods that focus on meticulous and multi-faceted methods that promote participation in treatment. At the same time, they also punish or reward based on performance, carry out strict supervision aimed at strengthening requirements and treatment obligations, and deepen the contradiction between the identity of patients and prisoners among drug users. On the other hand, the transition of procedures to collaboration, case-director orientation, and problem solving is different from confrontation, case-orientation, and truth discovery. In this regard, it is important to reflect on the problems with the system and the choice of values of the criminal policy seen behind them.參考文獻 一、中文部分（一）專書1. David Courtwright著，薛詢譯（2018），上癮五百年，3版，台北：立緒文化。2. David Garland著，周盈成譯（2006），控制的文化－當代社會的犯罪與社會秩序，台北：巨流出版。3. Garry Martin、Joseph Pear著，黃裕惠譯，洪儷瑜審訂（2012），行為改變技術：理論與運用，4版，台北：學富文化。4. Johann Hari著，李品佳譯（2017），追逐尖叫：跨越9國、1000個日子的追蹤，找到成癮的根源，以及失控也能重來的人生，台北：麥田出版。5. Lawrence M. Friedman著，劉宏恩、王敏銓譯（2016），美國法律史，台北：聯經出版。6. Patt Denning、Jeannie Little、Adina Glickman著，謝菊英、蔡春美、管少彬譯（2007），挑戰成癮觀點：減害治療模式，台北：張老師文化。7. Paul Bloom著，陳岳辰譯（2017），失控的同理心：道德判斷的偏誤與理性思考的價值，台北：商周出版8. 王兆鵬（2007），美國刑事訴訟法，2版，台北：元照出版。9. 王兆鵬（2008），刑事訴訟法講義，台北：元照出版。10. 李佳玟（2009），在地的刑罰‧全球的秩序，台北：元照出版。11. 林東茂（2009），刑法綜覽，6版，台北：新保成出版。12. 林山田（2008），刑法通論（下），10版，台北：元照出版。13. 林健陽、柯雨瑞（2003），毒品犯罪與防治，桃園：中央警大出版社。14. 許福生（2010），風險社會與犯罪治理，台北：元照出版。15. 許福生（2012），犯罪與刑事政策學，2版，台北：元照出版。16. 陳新錦（2016），早期美國毒品控制模式研究，上海：上海社會科學院出版社。17. 黃榮堅（1998），刑罰的極限，台北：元照出版。18. 翟帆（2016），二十世紀美國毒品政策的演變，上海：上海社會科學院出版社。19. 蔡墩銘（1988），矯治心理學，台北：正中書局。（二）期刊與專書論文1. 王兆鵬，受有效律師協助的權利──以美國法為參考，月旦法學雜誌，123期，頁148-171（2005年）。2. 王皇玉（2004），論施用毒品之犯罪化，臺大法學論叢，33卷，6期，頁39-76。3. 王皇玉（2005），論販賣毒品罪，政大法學評論，84期，頁225-275。4. 王皇玉（2010），台灣毒品政策與立法之回顧與評析，月旦法學雜誌，180期，頁80-96。5. 王泰升（2007），台灣的法律繼受經驗及其啟示，中研院法學期刊，創刊號，頁111-136。6. 王雪芳、王宏文（2017），台灣接受毒品緩起訴戒癮治療者再犯罪之分析，犯罪與刑事司法研究，27期，頁1-41。7. 何賴傑（2005），從拘束力觀點論協商程序，月旦法學雜誌，118期，頁9-17。8. 吳文正（2011），由治療性司法觀點探討以精神衛生法庭整合刑事司法與精神衛生二大體系，全國律師，15卷，5期，頁21-33。9. 吳全峰、黃文鴻（2007），論醫療人權之發展與權利體系，月旦法學雜誌，148期，頁128-161。10. 李宗憲、楊士隆（2010），刑事司法戒治處遇制度之問題與困境研究，犯罪學期刊，13卷，1期，頁107-141。11. 李思賢（2013），海洛因成癮者之心理與藥物諮商方案，收於：楊士隆、李思賢編，藥物濫用、毒品與防治，頁339-363，台北：五南文化。12. 李思賢、David S. Festinger、楊士隆、楊浩然、吳慧菁、廖文婷、林依蒖、鄭凱寶、Karen L. Dugosh、Brittney L. Seymour（2015），毒品再犯風險與醫療分流處置評量工具之研究，收於：刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（18），頁157-183。13. 李思賢、吳憲璋、黃昭正、王志傑、石倩瑜（2010），毒品罪再犯率與保護因子研究：以基隆地區為例，犯罪學期刊，13卷，1期，頁81-106。14. 李榮耕（2008），Gideon`s Trumpet 被告的受有效辯護權，全國律師，12卷，12期，頁21-45。15. 李榮耕（2011），受拘捕犯罪嫌疑人於訊問中之受辯護權，月旦法學雜誌，192期，頁45-62。16. 李維（2005），行為主義中文版譯序，收於：John Broadus Watson著，李維譯，行為主義，頁i-xv，台北：知書房。17. 周漾沂（2013），論被害人生命法益處分權之限制－以刑法父權主義批判為中心，臺北大學法學論叢，88 期，頁209-260。18. 林孟皇（2009），設置專業法庭的時代背景、必要性與問題解決之道，司法改革雜誌，74期，頁13-20。19. 林建陽、陳玉書、柯雨瑞、張智雄、呂豐足（2007），我國當前毒品戒治政策之省思與建議，收於法務部編，刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（10），頁283-322。20. 林臻嫻（2013），論毒品條例第24條第2項之「應依法追訴」－評最高法院100年台非字第51號判決暨100年度第一次刑事庭會議決議，刑事法雜誌，57卷，1期，頁27-49。21. 林儹紘（2012），論當前刑事政策下的施用毒品者─以我國的刑罰規制為中心，警大法學論集，23期，頁67-88。22. 法務部（2016），105年法務統計年報，法務部統計處編印。23. 邱獻輝（2010），物質濫用與依賴的基本概念探究，諮商與輔導，289期，頁38-42。24. 柯耀程（2013），量刑辯論構想的思辨，中央警察大學法學論叢，24期，頁29-56。25. 紀致光（2014），緩起訴處分戒癮治療之回顧與展望，犯罪學期刊，17卷，2期，頁193-212。26. 唐心北（2011），DSM-5診斷標準的改變Part II－DSM-5中物質及成癮疾患（Substance and Addictive Disorders）之主要改變，DSM-5通訊，1卷，4期，頁10-12。27. 唐心北（2013），DSM-5物質相關及成癮障礙症，DSM-5通訊，3卷，4期，頁6-7。28. 張天一（2009），兩岸保安處分制度之比較──以施用毒品之保安處分為中心，軍法專刊，55卷，4期，頁137-158。29. 張麗卿（2016），毒品濫用及其戒治，月旦法學雜誌，258期，頁116-131。30. 許恒達（2017），國際法規範與刑事立法：兼評近期刑事法修訂動向，臺大法學論叢，46卷，特刊，頁1257-1330（2017年）。31. 湯德宗（2005），論憲法上的正當程序保障，收於：行政程序法論，頁167-210，台北：元照出版。32. 黃正雄（2013），美國毒品法院與社區監督制度，檢察新論，13期，頁290-311。33. 黃家嫻、劉慧玲、侯玟里（2012），一位海洛因成癮者行為改變歷程之照護經驗－跨理論模式之應用，精神衛生護理雜誌，7卷，1期，頁41-48。34. 楊士隆、李宗憲（2013），藥物濫用之處遇制度－美國毒品法庭，收於：楊士隆、李思賢編，藥物濫用、毒品與防治，頁237-272，台北：五南文化。35. 楊秀儀（2007），論病人自主權─我國法上「告知後同意」之請求權基礎探討，臺大法學論叢，36卷，2期，頁229-268。36. 楊冀華（2017），美國毒品法庭計畫與我國附命完成戒癮治療緩起訴處分之比較，矯正期刊，6卷，2期，頁20-44。37. 廖定烈、鄭若瑟、吳文正、黃正誼、陳保中（2013），物質成癮及治療：國內臨床服務的十年發展，家庭醫學與基礎醫療，28卷，11期，頁299-304。38. 蔣凱若、陳采蕙、陸汝斌、周桂如（2005），物質濫用患者之認知行為治療，長庚護理，16卷，2期，頁181-189。39. 盧映潔（2006），刑事制裁體系：第四講－保安處分，月旦法學教室，43期，頁70-79。40. 謝如媛（2005），修復式司法的現狀與未來，月旦法學雜誌，118期，頁41-51。 41. 謝如媛（2007），夢想或現實？由紐西蘭經驗看修復式司法之可能性－以法院轉介之修復式司法方案為中心，成大法學，14期，頁121-166。42. 謝如媛（2011），論美國毒品法庭制度─從懲罰到醫療的刑事司法實踐，收於：國立政治大學刑事法學中心編，刑事法學的新視野，頁259-262，台北：元照出版。43. 謝如媛（2014），緩刑的刑事政策意涵：嚴罰趨勢下的寬典？，臺大法學論叢，43卷，4期，頁1609-1664。44. 謝煜偉（2005），寬嚴並進刑事政策之省思，月旦法學雜誌，126期，頁131-157。45. 嚴健彰（2014），成癮諮詢與預防復發，諮商與輔導，347期，頁4-12。（三）碩博士論文1. 李元棻（2015），以特別預防角度探討緩起訴制度，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。2. 李柏昇（2017），吸毒者處遇政策變遷（1998-2017）：制度論的解釋，國立台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文。3. 李茂生（1982），人犯設施外處遇，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。4. 周暉念（2009），假釋決定之要件、程序與救濟程序之探討，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。5. 林儹紘（2008），從社會復歸觀點論長期刑之受刑人處遇，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。6. 施奕暉（2013），施用毒品行為刑事政策與除罪化之研究，國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文。7. 楊冀華（2017），毒品施用者處遇效能之追蹤研究，中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文。8. 蔡維恬（2007），國家管制施用毒品行為之正當性？，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。9. 蕭彣卉（2007），病人與犯人：台灣百年來吸毒者的軌跡，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。（四）其他（官方報告、報章雜誌、關係文書、進修報告）1. 王作仁（2008），國內引進藥事法庭/酒後駕駛專責法庭-結合醫療與司法體系建立酒藥癮治療模式可行性初探，97年度行政院衛生署及所屬醫院醫事人員出國進修計畫，網址：http://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/report_download.jspx?sysId=C09803253&fileNo=001（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。2. 王作仁（2017/4/8），毒品法庭跨領域防治 美國這樣做，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20170408/37610961（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。3. 司法院（2017），司法院就設置毒品專責法庭評估意見書，司法改革國是會議第5分組第4次會議議題5-2-2，網址：https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9NObfZ1vI2WN0YteGJTZDRIekk/view（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。4. 立法院（2017/5/10），立法院第9屆第3會期第13次會議議案關係文書院總字308號，委員提案第20750號，立法院議案整合暨綜合查詢系統，網址：http://lci.ly.gov.tw/LyLCEW/agenda1/02/pdf/09/03/13/LCEWA01_090313_00052.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。5. 朱學恒（2018/8/2），這樣的修法哪叫向毒品宣戰，ETtoday新聞雲論壇（雲論），網址：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20160802/746849.htm（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。6. 即時新聞（2016/8/4），毒品醫療前置化引論戰 台大教授提「毒品法庭」，自由時報，網址：http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1784936（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。7. 吳景欽（2018/8/5），吸毒醫療前置化已存在，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20160805/37336457（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。8. 林達（2017/12/4），創建毒品法庭 升級作業系統，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20171204/1252792/（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。9. 林達（2017/3/16），新設毒品法庭翻轉毒品政策，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20170316/1077021/（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。10. 林達（2017/4/5），毒品法庭保安處分是反毒新解方，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20170405/37607874（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。11. 林達（2017/4/9），運用毒品法庭 帶動觀護分流，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20170409/1094081/（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。12. 法務統計資訊網，網址：www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。13. 法務部，毒品施用者戒癮治療概況分析，網址：http://www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw/RJSDWEB/common/WebListFile.ashx?list_id=1484（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。14. 法務部，毒品情勢分析（下），網址：http://antidrug.moj.gov.tw/dl-2350-3b0649b4-0b06-455b-ae6f-7f0ee6ce2f15.html（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。15. 法務部，矯正機關收容施用毒品者及其再犯情形，網址：http://antidrug.moj.gov.tw/dl-2307-173afd1d-2858-4635-a9cc-3da8f9c0d989.html（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。16. 許春金、陳玉書、蔡田木（2013），毒品施用者處遇及除罪化可行性之研究，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究。17. 黃正雄（2012），替代療法之發展現況，赴美國康乃爾大學法學院研習出國報告，網址：http://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/report_download.jspx?sysId=C10100483&fileNo=001（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。18. 黃名琪（2017/4/20），這樣做 才有助毒品戒癮治療，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20170420/37624303（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。19. 楊士隆、蔡德輝、張伯宏、李宗憲、莊淑婷、黃天鈺（2008），戒治機構內成癮性毒品施用者之管理與處遇模式建構，法務部委託研究。20. 楊淳卉（2016/7/5），毒品問題嚴重 立委提修法勒戒前先戒癮治療，自由時報，網址：http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1752016（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。21. 管婺媛（2018/5/8），提設立毒品法庭 立委：有效打擊毒品犯罪，聯合報，網址：https://udn.com/news/story/6656/2449432（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。22. 盧映潔（2017），書面意見，司法改革國是會議第5分組第4次會議議題5-2-2，網址：https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9NObfZ1vI2WTXk3NnBLeVpwX0U/view（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。23. 蕭白雪（2017/8/14），設毒品法庭…蔡英文：該做 司法院長：再研究，聯合報，網址：https://udn.com/news/story/9939/2640704（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。24. 賴佩璇（2017/5/25），司改國是會議 兩派論戰是否設「毒品法庭」，聯合報，網址：https://udn.com/news/story/7315/2484014（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。二、英文部分（一）專書1. Dawn Moore. 2007. Criminal Artefacts: Governing Drugs and Users. Canada: UBC Press.2. E. Allan Lind and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.3. Greg Berman & Aubrey Fox. 2010. Trial & Error in Criminal Justice Reform: Learning From Failure. New York: Urban Institute Press.4. Greg Berman & John Feinblatt. 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem- Solving Justice. New York: The New Press.5. James L. Nolan. 1997. The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century’s End. New York: New York University Press.6. James L. Nolan. 2003. Reinventing justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.7. James L. Nolan. 2009. Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing: The international Problem-Solving Courts Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.8. Jennifer Murphy. 2015. IIllness or Deviance? Drug Courts, Drug Treatment and the Ambiguity of Addiction. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.9. Jerome Bruner. 2003. Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.10. Joan Dunayer. 2001. Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood: Ryce Publishing.11. Joann L. Miller & Donald C. Johnson. 2009. Problem solving courts: a measure of Justice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.12. Kevin White. 2008. Drug Court Justice: Experiences in a Juvenil Drug Court. New York. Peter Lang Publishing.13. Lawerence Baum. 2010. Specializing the Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.14. Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, Richard A. Posner. 2013. The Behavior Of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.15. Martin Mayer. 2006. The Judges: a penetrating exploration of American courts and of the new decisions-hard decisions-they must make for a new millennium. New York: Truman Talley Books.16. Martin Shapiro. 1986. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago & London: University Of Chicago Press.17. Mitchel P. Roth. 2011. Crime and Punishment: A history of the Criminal Justice System. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.18. Mitchell B. Mackinem and Paul Higgins. 2008. Drug Court: constructing the moral identity of drug offenders. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.19. Rebecca Tiger. 2012. Judging Addicts: Drug Courts and Coercion in the Justice System. New York: New York University Press.20. Tom Ginsburg, Tamir Moustafa. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.（二）期刊與專書論文1. Alex Stevens, Daniele Berto, Wolfgang Heckmann, Viktoria Kerschl, Kerralie Oeuvray, Marianne Ooyen van, Elfriede Steffan & Ambros Uchtenhagen. 2005. Quasi-Compulsory Treatment of Drug Dependent Offenders: An International Literature Review, Substance Use & Misuse 40(3): 269-283.2. Allison D. Redich. 2013. The Past, Present, and Future of Mental Health Courts, Pp. 147-161 in Problem Solving Courts : Social Science and Legal Perspectives, edited by Richard L. Wiener & Eve Brank. New York: Springer-Verlag New York.3. Brain MacKenzie. 2015. The Judge is the key component: The importance of procedural fairness in drug-treatment courts. Court Review 52: 8-34.4. Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler. 2006. The Use of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Law School Clinical Education: Transforming the Criminal Law Clinic. Clinical Law Review 13: 605-634.5. Bruce J. Winick. 2002. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts, Fordham Urban Law Journal 30(3): 1055-1103.6. Caitlinrose Fisher. 2014. Treating the Disease or Punishing the Criminal?: Effectively Using Drug Court Sanctions To Treat Substance Use Disorder and Decrease Criminal Conduct. Minnesota Law Review 99(2): 747-781.7. Cary Heck & Aaron Roussell. 2007. State Administration of Drug Court: Exploring Issues of Authority, Funding and Legitimacy. Criminal Justice Policy Review 18(4): 418-433.8. Cary Heck, Aaron Roussell, Scott E. Culhane. 2009. Assessing the Effects of the Drug Court Intervention on Offender Criminal Trajectories: A Research Note, Crime Justice Policy Review 20(2): 236-246.9. Christine H. Lindquist, Bryn Ann Herrschaft, Pamela K. Lattimore. 2014. Reentry Courts. Pp.4351-4360 in Encylopidia of Crimology and Criminal Justice, edited by Bruinsma, Gerben, Weisburd, David. New Ork: Springer Verlag New York.10. Christopher Slobogin. 1995. Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Five Dilemmas to Ponder. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1(1): 193-219. 11. Clare Cappa. 2006. The Social, Political and Theoretical context of drug courts, Monash University Law Review 32(1): 145-176.12. Daniel M. Fetsco. 2011. Early Release From Prison in Wyoming: An overview of Parole in Wyoming and Elsewhere and an Examination of Current and Future Trends. Wyoming Law Review 11(1): 99-122.13. David B. Rottman. 2000. Does effective therpeutic jurisprudence requrie specialized courts (and do specialized courts imply specialist judge) ?. Court Review 37(2): 22-27.14. David B. Wexler. 2005. Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Clinical Legal Education and Legal Skills Training: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Rehabilitative Role of the Criminal Defense Lawyer. Thomas Law Review 17(3): 743-773.15. David B. Wexler. 2014. New Wine in New Bottles: The Need to Sketch a Therapeutic Jurisprudence “Code” of Proposed Criminal Processes and Practice. Arizona Summit Law Review 7: 463-480.16. David De Matteo, Sarah Filone and Casey LaDuke. Methodological, Ethical, and Legal Considerations in Drug Court Research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29: 806-820.17. David S. DeMatteo, Douglas B. Marlowe and David S. Festinger. 2006. Secondary Prevention Services for Clients Who Are Low Risk in Drug Court: A Conceptual Model. Crime and Delinquency 52(1): 114-134.18. Deborah J. Chase & Peggy F. Hora. 2000. The Implications of TherapeuticJurisprudence for Judicial Satisfaction. Court Review 37: 12-20.19. Eric Lane. 2003. Due Process and Problem Solving Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 3(3): 955-1026.20. Faith E. Lutze & Jacqueline Van Wormer. 2014. The Reality of Practicing the Ten Key Components in Adult Drug Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 53: 351-383.21. Francis A. Allen. 1978. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal in American Criminal Justice. Cleveland State Law Review 27: 147-156.22. Gerald Dworkin. 2015. Defining Paternalism. Pp. 17-29 in New Perspectives on Paternalism and Health Care, edited by Thomas Schramme, Springer International Publishing.23. Greg Berman & Aubrey Fox. 2010. The Future of Problem-Solving Justice: An International Perspective, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Relegion, gender & Class 10: 1-24.24. Greg Berman & John Feinblatt. 2001. Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer. Law and Policy 23(2): 125-140.25. Greg Berman. 2000. What is a Traditional Judge Anyway? Problem Solving in the State Courts. Judicature 84(2): 78-85.26. Hepburn, J. R., & Harvey, A. 2007. The effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court? Crime & Delinquency 53: 255-280.27. James Duffy. 2011. Problem-Solving Courts, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Constitution: If Two is Company, is Three a Crowd?. Melbourne University Law Review 35: 394-425. 28. James L. Nolan. 2002. Therapeutic adjudication. Society 39(2): 29-38.29. James L. Nolan. 2010. Harm Reduction and the American Difference: Drug Treatment and Problem-Solving Courts in Comparative Perspective. Health Care Law and Policy 13: 31-47.30. James L. Nolan. 2011. Redefining Criminal Courts: Problem Solving and the Meaning of Justice Pp. 3-31 in Law and Courts Current Perspectives from Infotrac, edited by George Ackerman, Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.31. Jane M. Spinak. 2003. Why Defenders Feel Defensive: The Defender`s Role in Problem-Solving Courts. American Criminal Law Review 40: 1617-1622. 32. Jeffrey A. Butts. 2011. Introduction: Problem-Solving Courts. Law & Policy 23(2): 121-124.33. Jelena Popovic. 2006. Court Process and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Have We Thrown The Baby Out With The Bathwater. E-Law Journal 1: 60-77.34. Jeremy Travis & Joan Petersilia. 2001. Reentry reconsidered: a new look at an old question. Crime Delinquency 47(3): 291-313.35. Jeremy Travis. 2000. But they all come back: rethinking prisoner reentry, Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century 7: 1-11.36. Joel Gross. 2010. The Effects of Net-Widening on Minority and Indigent Drug Offenders: A Critique of Drug Courts. Maryland Law Journal Race Religion, Gender & Class 10: 161-178.37. John A. Bozza. 2007. Benevolent behavior modification: understanding the nature and limitations of Problem-Solving Courts. Widener Law Journal 17(1): 97-143.38. John Braithwaite. 2002. Restorative Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Criminal Law Bulletin 38(2): 244-262.39. John Feinblatt & Derek Denckla. 2001. What Does It Mean To Be a Good Lawyer?: Prosecutors, Defenders, and Problem-Solving Courts, Judicature 84: 206-214.40. John L. Todd. 1918. The meaning of Rehabilitation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 80(6): 1-10.41. John S. Goldkamp 2000. The Drug Court Response: Issue and Implications for Justice Change. Albany Law Review 63: 923-961.42. John S. Goldkamp, Michael D. White, Jennifer B. Robinson. 2001. Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues 31(1): 27-72.43. John Terrence A. Rosenthal. 2002. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Drug Treatment Courts: Integrating Law and Science. Pp. 145-171 in Drug Court in Theory and in Practice, edited by James L. Nolan, New York: Aldine de gruyter.44. Judith S. Kaye. 2004. Delivering Justice Today: A Problem-Solving Approach. Yale Law and Policy Review 22: 125-151.45. Judy H. Kluger et al. 2001. The Impact of Problem-Solving on the Lawyer`s Role and Ethics, Fordham Urban Law Journal 29(5): 1893-1924.46. Kerwin Kaye. 2015. Rehabilitating the ‘drugs lifestyle’: Criminal justice, social control, and the cultivation of agency. Ethnography 14(2): 207-232.47. Mae C. Quinn. 2007. An RSVP to Professor Wexler`s Warm Therapeutic Jurisprudence Invitation to the Criminal Defense Bar: Unable to Join You, Already (Somewhat Similarly) Engaged. Boston College Law Review 48(3): 539-595.48. Mae Quinn. 2001. Whose Team Am I on Anyway: Musings of a Public Defender about Drug Treatment Court Practice. New York University Journal of Law and Social Change 26: 35-75.49. Malcolm M. Feeley & Joathan Simon. 1992. The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implication. Criminology 30(4): 449-474.50. Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel. 2001. Drug Treatment courts and Emergent Experimentalist Government. Vanderbilt Law Review 53(3): 831-883.51. Michael C. Dorf. 2006. Problem-Solving Courts and the Judicial accountability deficit. Pp. 309-328 in Public Accountability, Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, edited by Michael W. Dowdle, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.52. Michael D Clark. 2003. A Change-Focused Approach for Judges. Pp. 137-147 in Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts, edited by Bruce J Winick and David B Wexler. Carolina Academic Press.53. Michael Tonry & Mary Lynch. 1996. Intermediate Sanctions. Crime & Just 20: 99-144.54. Micheal Foucault. 1997. A Birth of Biopolitics, Pp. 73-79 in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (The Essential Works of Micheal Foucault, 1954-1984), edited by Paul Rainbow. New York: The New Press.55. Morris B. Hoffman. 2000. The Drug Court Scandal. North Carolina Law Review 78(5): 1439-1531.56. Morris B. Hoffman. 2001. Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Neo-Rehabilitationism, and Judicial Collectivism: The Least Dangerous Branch Becomes Most Dangerous. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29(5): 2063-2098.57. Morris B. Hoffman. 2011. Problem-Solving Courts and the Psycholegal Error. University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 160(1) 129-139. 58. Nicky Padfield. 2011. Judicial Rehabilitation? A view from England. European Journal of Probation 3(1): 36-49.59. O`Hear, Michael M. 2009. Rethinking Drug Courts: Restorative Justice as a Response to Racial Injustice. Stanford Law & Policy Review 20: 463-500.60. Ole Jacob Madsen. 2014. Therapeutic Culture, Pp.1965-1968 in Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, edited by Thomas Teo. New York: Springer-Verlag New York.61. Pat O’Malley. 1996. Risk and Responsibility, Pp. 189-207 in Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government, edited by Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne and Nickolas Rose. Abingdon: Routledge.62. Peggy Fulton Hora, William G. Schma, JohnT.A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74(2): 439-538.63. Peggy Fulton Hora. 2011. Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice 2(1): 7-52.64. Peter Raynor & Gwen Robinson. 2009. Why Help Offenders Arguments for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy. European Journal of Probation 1(1): 3-20.65. John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Annette McGaha and Roger A. Boothroyd. 2003. The Broward Mental Health Court: process, outcomes, and service utilization. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26(1): 55-71.66. Philip Bean. 2002. Drug Courts, the Judge, and the Rehabilitative Ideal. Pp.235-254 in Drug Court in Theory and in Practice, edited by James L. Nolan. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.67. Rekha Mirchandani. 2008. Beyond Therapy: Problem-Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State. Law & Social Inquiry 33(4): 853-893.68. Richard C. Boldt. 2009. A Circumspect Look at Problem-Solving Courts. Pp. 13-32 in Problem-Solving Courts: Justice for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Paul C. Higgins & Mitchell B. Mackinem. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.69. Richard C. Boldt. 2014. Problem-Solving Courts and Pragmatism, Maryland Law Review 73: 1120-1172.70. Robert G. Madden & Raymie H. Wayne. 2015. Constructing A Normative Framework For Therapeutic Jurisprudence Using Social Work Principles As A Model. Touro Law Review 18(3): 487-502.71. Robert V. Wolf. 2008. Breaking with tradition: Introducing problem solving in conventional courts. International Law, Computer & Technology 21(1): 77-93.72. Roblin Mackenzie. 2008. Feeling Good: the Ethopolitics of Pleasure, Psychoactive Substance Use and Public Health and Criminal Justice System Governance: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Courts in the United States of America. Social and Legal Studies 17(4): 513-533.73. Samantha Jeffries. 2005. How Justice ‘Get Done’: Politics, Mangerialism, Consumerism, and Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Current Issue in Criminal Justice 17: 254-268.74. Scott Vrecko. 2009. Therapeutic Justice in Drug Court: Crime, Punishment and Societies of Control. Science as Culture 18(2): 217-232.75. Scott W. Henggeler. 2007. Juvenile drug courts: emerging outcomes and key research issues. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 20(3): 242-246.76. Shane Butler. 2013. The symbolic politics of the Dublin drug court: The complexities of policy transfer. Drug: education, prevention and policy 20(1): 5-14.77. Shannon Portillo, Danielle S. Rudes & Faye S. Taxman. 2016. The Transportability of Contingency Management in Problem-solving Courts. Justice Quarterly 33(22): 267-290.78. Shannon Portillo, Danielle S. Rudes, Jill Viglione and Mattew Nelson. 2013. Front-stage stars and backstage producers: The role of judges in problem-solving courts. Victims & offenders 8(1): 1-22.79. Susan Daicoff. 2006. Law as a Healing Profession: The "Comprehensive Law Movement", Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal. 6: 1-62.80. Susan H. Brown, Sara G. Gilman, Ellen G. Goodman, Robbie Adler-Tapia, Steven Freg. 2015. Integrated Trauma Treatment in Drug Court: Combining EMDR Therapy and Seeking Safety. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research vol.9(3): 123-136.81. Tamar M. Meekins. 2006. “Specialized Justice”: The Over-Emergence of Specialty Courts and the Threat of a New Criminal Defense Paradigm. Suffolk University Law Review 40: 1-55.82. Tamar M. Meekins. 2007. Risky Business- Criminal Specialty Courts and the Ethical Obligation of Zealous Criminal Defender. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 12(1): 75-126.83. Timothy Casey. 2004. When Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Problem-Solving Courts and the Impending Crisis of Legitimacy. SMU Law Review 57: 1459-1520.84. Toby Seddon. 2007. Coerced drug treatment in the criminal justice system: conceptual, ethical and criminological issues, Criminology and Criminal Justice 7(3): 269-286.85. Vanja Bajović. 2010. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem-Solving Courts, Pregledni Članci 15(8): 257-269.（三）碩博士論文1. Leah C. Georges. 2014. Procedural Due Process in Modern Problem-Solving Courts: An Application of the Asymmetric Immune Knowledge Hypothesis, PhD diss, University of Nebraska.（四）其他（官方與民間報告、未出版文獻、線上影音）1. Adult Drug Court Standards Vol. II. 2015. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3tTMY3qkkU (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).2. Arielle W. Tolman. 2010. The Rebirth of the Rehabilitative: The Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Available at http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=etd_hon_theses (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).3. Aubrey Fox & Robert V. Wolf. 2004. The Future of Drug Courts: How States are Mainstreaming the Drug Court Model. Available at https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/futureofdrugcourts.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).4. Betty Gurnell, Meg Holmberg and Susan Yeres. 2014. Starting a Juvenile Drug Court: A Planning Guide. Available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/NCJFCJ_JDC_PlanningGuide_Final.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).5. Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2000. Emerging Judical Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale. Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182504.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).6. Caroline S. Cooper. 2001. Juvenile Drug Court Program, U.S. Department of Justice. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184744.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).7. Center for Court innovation. 2006. Problem-Solving Justice: A Law School Course. Available at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/psjlawschoolcourse.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).8. Cetre for justice innovation. 2015. Problem-solving courts: An evidence review. Available at http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Problem-solving-courts-An-evidence-review.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).9. Christopher J. Mumola. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at http://csdp.org/research/satsfp97.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).10. Douglas B. Marlowe, Carolyn D. Hardin, Carson L. Fox (NADCP). 2016. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts in United States. Available at http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/2014/Painting%20the%20Current%20Picture%202016.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 11. Douglas B. Marlowe. 2010. Research Update on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts. Available at https://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Research%20Update%20on%20Juvenile%20Drug%20Treatment%20Courts%20-%20NADCP_1.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).12. Drug Court Standards - NADCP Chief of Science, Law and Policy Dr. Doug Marlowe. 2013. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJi1udGWxrM (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).13. Gallup. 2016. Confidence in Institutions. Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).14. Gerald Dworkin. 2017. Paternalism. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).15. Jamey Hueston. 2011. Sanctions and Incentives: A Review of What Works and Why. Available at http://www.wellnesscourts.org/files/Sanctions%20%20Incentives%20JHueston%20.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018)16. Jeffrey N. Kushner, Roger H. Peters. 2014. A Technical Assistance Guide For Drug Court Judges on Drug Court Treatment Services, BJA Drug Court Technical Assistance Project. Available at https://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/initiatives/drug-court/upload/A-Technical-Assistance-Guide-for-Drug-Court-Judges-on-Drug-Court-Treatment-Services.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).17. John Ashcroft, Deborah J. Daniels, Domingo S. Herraiz, NADCP. 1997. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/205621.pdf (last visited Jan. 24, 2017).18. John S. Goldkamp & Doris Weiland. 1993. Assessing the Impact of Dade County’s Felony Drug Court. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/145302.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018) 19. Patrick A. Langan & David J. Levin (BJS Statisticians) 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf(last visited Mar. 18, 2018).20. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer. 2009. America’s Problem Solving Courts: The Criminal Costs of Treatment and the Case for Reform. Available at https://www.nacdl.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=20217 (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).21. National Association of Drug Court Professionals & National Drug Court Institute. 2009. List of Incentives and Sanctions. Available at http://ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/sanctions_and_incentives_ndci_annotated_document.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).22. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 2013. Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards: Volume I. Available at http://www.allrise.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/AdultDrugCourtBestPracticeStandards.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 23. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 2015. Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards: Volume II. Available at http://www.allrise.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/AdultDrugCourtBestPracticeStandards.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 24. National Drug Court Institute. 2002. Ethical Considerations for Judges and Attorneys in Drug Courts. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197080.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).25. National Drug Court Institute. 2003. Critical Issues for Defense Attorneys in Drug Courts. Available at https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/Mono4.CriticalIssues.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).26. National Legal Aid & Defender Association. 2002. Ten Tenets of Fair and Effective Problem-Solving Courts. Available at http://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/11204/742/Ten%20Tenets%20of%20Fair%20and%20Effective%20Problem%20Solving%20Courts.pdf?sequence=3 (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).27. Office of Justice Programs. 1999. Reentry Courts: Managing the Transition from Prison to Community. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/sl000389.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).28. Paula M. Ditton. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/bojs_mental_health_and_treatment_of_inmates_and_probationers_1999.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).29. Robert Wolf. 2005. California’s Collaborative Justice Courts: Building A Problem-Solving Judiciary. Available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California_Story.pdf(last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 30. Sarra L. Hedden, Joel Kennet, Rachel Lipari, Grace Medley, Peter Tice. 2014. Behavioral Health Trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Available at https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/NSDUH-FRR1-2014.htm (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 31. Sirotich & Frank. 2006. Reconfiguring Crime Control and Criminal Justice: Governmentality and Problem-Solving Courts. University of New Brunswick Law Journal. Available at https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reconfiguring+crime+control+and+criminal+justice%3a+governmentality+and...-a0163435967 (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).32. Susan Yeres, Betty Gurnell and Meg Holmberg. 2005. Making Sense of Incentives and Sanctions in working with the Substance Abuse Offender. Available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/incentivesandsanctions_july_2009%282%29_0.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 20188).33. The Sentencing Project. 2017. Trend in U.S. Correction. Available at http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).34. Thomas D. Barton. 2002. Preventive Law: A Methodology for Preventing Problems. Available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/dispute_resolution/bartonprevent.authcheckdam.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).35. United Nations Office on Drug and Crime. 2003. Investing in drug abuse treatment: A discussion paper for policy maker. Available at https://www.unodc.org/docs/treatment/Investing_E.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).36. USA Today. 2006. USA Today/HBO Drug Addiction Poll. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-07-19-addiction-poll.htm (last visitied Mar. 18, 2018).37. William G. Meyer. 2007. Constitution and Other Legal Issues in Drug Court. Available at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2007/interim/drugcourt/legalissues.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).三、日文部分（一）專著1. 丸山泰弘（2015），刑事司法における薬物依存治療プログラムの意義：「回復」をめぐる権利と義務，東京：日本評論社。（二）期刊與專書論文1. 甘利航司（2012），非拘禁的措置と社会内処遇の課題と展望。刑事立法研究会編，非拘禁的措置と社会内処遇の課題と展望，頁36-72，東京：現代人文社。2. 謝如媛（2007），社会内処遇をめぐる台湾の現状ー2005年の法改正を中心に，刑事立法研究会編，更生保護制度改革のゆくえー犯罪をした人の社会復帰のために，頁328-349，東京：現代人文社。3. 謝如媛（2009），薬物乱用に関する台湾の法規範と刑事政策，矯正講座，29号，頁111-143。4. 森村たまき（2007），ドラッグ・コートの10の構成要素，石塚伸一編，日本版ドラッグ・コート―処罰から治療へ，頁89-98，東京：日本評論社。5. 森村たまき（2007），ドラッグ・コート前史―アメリカにおける薬物政策の変遷，石塚伸一編，日本版ドラッグ・コート―処罰から治療へ，頁72-76，東京：日本評論社。6. 西村直之（2013），薬物依存とは何か？～回復支援の限界を超えるために～，石塚伸一編，薬物政策への新たなる挑戦──日本版ドラッグ・コートを越えて，頁205-215，東京：日本評論社。7. 尾田真言（2007），ドラッグ・コート制度，石塚伸一編，日本版ドラッグ・コート―処罰から治療へ，頁80-89，東京：日本評論社。（三）其他1. 叁議院議事錄情報（2011/11/24），第179回国会法務委員会第4回，http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/kaigijoho/shitsugi/179/s065_0003.html（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
103651021資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103651021 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 謝如媛 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsieh, Ju Yuan en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林俊儒 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Jun Ru en_US dc.creator (作者) 林俊儒 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Jun Ru en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 9-Apr-2018 15:55:00 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 9-Apr-2018 15:55:00 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-Apr-2018 15:55:00 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0103651021 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/116782 - 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) 103651021 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 毒品法庭自美國發展而逐漸影響世界各地，甚至成為台灣修法倡議，是晚近刑事政策的重要議題。為深入了解毒品法庭，除介紹制度的發展概況與具體內涵外，尚將進一步考掘歷史成因及改革困境，並從制度構造及程序法理的二方面剖析其所引發的爭議。最後，將問題帶回台灣，在透過實證數據理解實務現況的基礎上，將改革情勢與制度問題脈絡化進行比較研究，試圖從刑事政策的觀點提出評價性建議，以作為台灣毒品施用者處遇的策進方向。毒品法庭於其權限範圍內，避免對於毒品施用者施加刑罰，而改採治療的態度與方法，促使其參與以治療為主、多元且細緻的處遇。在此同時，也視其表現給予懲罰或獎勵，進行嚴密監督以強化治療義務的要求，加深毒品施用者兼具病人與犯人身分的矛盾。另一方面，程序轉為合作、案主導向、問題解決，則與以往對抗、案件導向、真實發現有別。藉此反思台灣毒品施用者處遇，重要的毋寧是檢討制度的各種爭議，以及其背後所顯示的刑事政策的價值選擇。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Drug Courts that have risen from development in the United States have had a gradual influence on the rest of the world, and have even been amended into Taiwanese law. This has been an important issue in recent discussions of criminal policy. In order to understand Drug Courts in detail, this article first introduces the background and the contents of the system, and then explores historical causes and reform dilemmas. It then analyzes the issue from the perspective of institutional structure and procedural legal principles. To then focus the issue back on Taiwan, on the basis of understanding the current state of practice through empirical data, a comparative study of the context of reform and institutional issues is conducted. Finally, this article will attempt to put forward a proposal for an evaluation from the perspective of criminal policy as a strategy for dealing with drug addicts in Taiwan.Within its jurisdiction, the Drug Court will avoid applying penalties to drug users, and instead adopt attitudes and methods that focus on meticulous and multi-faceted methods that promote participation in treatment. At the same time, they also punish or reward based on performance, carry out strict supervision aimed at strengthening requirements and treatment obligations, and deepen the contradiction between the identity of patients and prisoners among drug users. On the other hand, the transition of procedures to collaboration, case-director orientation, and problem solving is different from confrontation, case-orientation, and truth discovery. In this regard, it is important to reflect on the problems with the system and the choice of values of the criminal policy seen behind them. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與問題意識 1第一項 研究背景 1第二項 問題意識 2第二節 研究方法與論文架構 4第一項 研究方法 4第二項 論文架構 4第三節 用語說明 5第二章 制度興起及其具體內涵 7第一節 毒品法庭的制度興起 7第一項 問題解決型法庭的風潮 7第一款 兩個世代的發展 7第二款 法庭的數量變化 8第三款 發展路徑與制度概況 10第二項 來自草根的法律發明 15第一款 可控制的司法 15第二款 法律現實主義的色彩 16第三項 作為理論基礎的治療式司法 16第一款 運動‧觀點‧領域 16第二款 實踐及其文化淵源 17第二節 毒品法庭的具體內涵 19第一項 核心要素 20第二項 處遇團隊 22第三項 程序構造 24第一款 進入程序 25第二款 參與程序 29第三款 終結程序 34第四項 定義毒品法庭 35第三節 小結 36第三章 歷史成因及其改革困境 37第一節 毒品法庭的歷史成因 37第一項 針對施用毒品罪的背景 37第一款 旋轉門司法 38第二款 從懲罰到治療的轉變 39第二項 發生在刑事法庭的背景 43第一款 法官裁量權受到限制 43第二款 重新挽回公眾信心 43第三款 法庭的專業分工 45第四款 複合式法律運動 46第三項 採取具獎懲性質司法監督的背景 48第一款 席捲而來的監禁大浪 48第二款 趨向中間制裁的社區處遇 50第三款 行為主義風潮的影響 52第四款 社會復歸概念的轉化 54第二節 毒品法庭的改革困境 55第一項 改革的政治需求與危機 56第一款 兩股政治力量的合流 56第二款 擱置問題所潛藏的危機 57第二項 在刑事法庭匍匐前進的限制 60第一款 刑事法庭的機構視角 60第二款 有限資源下的功能擴張 60第三款 權力分立下的積極司法行動 61第三項 改革路上的問題 63第一款 標準設定與經驗教訓 63第二款 社會運動與毒品法庭 66第三節 小結 67第四章 毒品法庭的爭議與檢討 69第一節 制度構造的疑慮 69第一項 病犯的概念 69第一款 在犯罪與疾病之間 69第二款 毒品法庭內的病犯 70第三款 特別預防下的醫療人權？ 71第二項 病人與犯人身分的鬥爭 73第一款 間接強制與自願治療 73第二款 再犯罪與再施用 76第三款 進入標準與醫療需求 77第四款 畢業標準與戒癮成效 78第三項 病人與犯人身分的融合 79第一款 等級制裁制度的問題 80第二款 令人懷疑的治療義務 82第四項 身分與治理技術 83第一款 從身分切換到身分融合 83第二款 自我治理的技術 84第二節 程序法理的質疑 86第一項 合作式司法與正當程序 86第一款 合作式司法 87第二款 與正當程序的對話 88第二項 訴訟主體任務轉變的風險 93第一款 對於法官中立性與獨立性的質疑 94第二款 律師權與律師倫理的變動 99第三款 被告權益保障不足 104第三項 衝突中的程序價值 105第三節 小結 106第五章 毒品法庭帶給台灣的省思 108第一節 台灣毒品施用者處遇的現況與問題 108第一項 現行處遇模式概述 108第二項 處遇的具體內容與困境 110第一款 緩起訴處分附命完成戒癮治療 110第二款 觀察、勒戒與強制戒治 117第三款 緩刑、易刑處分與禁戒處分 118第四款 入監服刑 120第五款 保護管束 122第二節 改革浪潮與制度比較 124第一項 面對改革浪潮 124第一款 第三波醫療化改革？ 124第二款 美國毒品戰爭下的國際潮流？ 126第三款 難以撼動的施用毒品罪？ 128第二項 制度框架與處遇內容的比較 129第一款 緩起訴處分附命完成戒癮治療 129第二款 緩刑附命完成戒癮治療 131第三款 保安處分 132第三節 對毒品法庭的省思與建議 133第一項 制度的評價性建議 133第一款 強化進入處遇的自願性 133第二款 再施用與再犯罪的脫鉤 134第三款 以醫療需求作為進入標準 135第四款 以減害理念作為畢業標準 136第五款 不應引進等級制裁制度 137第六款 建構多元細緻的處遇內容 138第七款 打造符合尊嚴的處遇制度 139第二項 即將邁出的改革步伐？ 139第一款 尚待釐清的倡議 140第二款 在檢察官與法官之間 141第四節 小結 143第六章 結論 145第一節 本文回顧 145第二節 未來展望 146參考文獻 148 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2522187 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103651021 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 毒品法庭 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 問題解決型法庭 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 治療式司法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作式司法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 刑事法庭 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 施用毒品罪 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 病患型犯人 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 緩起訴 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 緩刑 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 戒癮治療 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 特別預防 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 醫療人權 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Drug court en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Problem-solving court en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Therapeutic justice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative justice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Criminal court en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Drug use en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patient and prisoner en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Deferred prosecution en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Suspended sentence en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Addiction treatment en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Special prevention en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Rights of patients and health care en_US dc.title (題名) 毒品法庭的批判性考察 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A Critical Analysis of Drug Courts en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分（一）專書1. David Courtwright著，薛詢譯（2018），上癮五百年，3版，台北：立緒文化。2. David Garland著，周盈成譯（2006），控制的文化－當代社會的犯罪與社會秩序，台北：巨流出版。3. Garry Martin、Joseph Pear著，黃裕惠譯，洪儷瑜審訂（2012），行為改變技術：理論與運用，4版，台北：學富文化。4. Johann Hari著，李品佳譯（2017），追逐尖叫：跨越9國、1000個日子的追蹤，找到成癮的根源，以及失控也能重來的人生，台北：麥田出版。5. Lawrence M. Friedman著，劉宏恩、王敏銓譯（2016），美國法律史，台北：聯經出版。6. Patt Denning、Jeannie Little、Adina Glickman著，謝菊英、蔡春美、管少彬譯（2007），挑戰成癮觀點：減害治療模式，台北：張老師文化。7. Paul Bloom著，陳岳辰譯（2017），失控的同理心：道德判斷的偏誤與理性思考的價值，台北：商周出版8. 王兆鵬（2007），美國刑事訴訟法，2版，台北：元照出版。9. 王兆鵬（2008），刑事訴訟法講義，台北：元照出版。10. 李佳玟（2009），在地的刑罰‧全球的秩序，台北：元照出版。11. 林東茂（2009），刑法綜覽，6版，台北：新保成出版。12. 林山田（2008），刑法通論（下），10版，台北：元照出版。13. 林健陽、柯雨瑞（2003），毒品犯罪與防治，桃園：中央警大出版社。14. 許福生（2010），風險社會與犯罪治理，台北：元照出版。15. 許福生（2012），犯罪與刑事政策學，2版，台北：元照出版。16. 陳新錦（2016），早期美國毒品控制模式研究，上海：上海社會科學院出版社。17. 黃榮堅（1998），刑罰的極限，台北：元照出版。18. 翟帆（2016），二十世紀美國毒品政策的演變，上海：上海社會科學院出版社。19. 蔡墩銘（1988），矯治心理學，台北：正中書局。（二）期刊與專書論文1. 王兆鵬，受有效律師協助的權利──以美國法為參考，月旦法學雜誌，123期，頁148-171（2005年）。2. 王皇玉（2004），論施用毒品之犯罪化，臺大法學論叢，33卷，6期，頁39-76。3. 王皇玉（2005），論販賣毒品罪，政大法學評論，84期，頁225-275。4. 王皇玉（2010），台灣毒品政策與立法之回顧與評析，月旦法學雜誌，180期，頁80-96。5. 王泰升（2007），台灣的法律繼受經驗及其啟示，中研院法學期刊，創刊號，頁111-136。6. 王雪芳、王宏文（2017），台灣接受毒品緩起訴戒癮治療者再犯罪之分析，犯罪與刑事司法研究，27期，頁1-41。7. 何賴傑（2005），從拘束力觀點論協商程序，月旦法學雜誌，118期，頁9-17。8. 吳文正（2011），由治療性司法觀點探討以精神衛生法庭整合刑事司法與精神衛生二大體系，全國律師，15卷，5期，頁21-33。9. 吳全峰、黃文鴻（2007），論醫療人權之發展與權利體系，月旦法學雜誌，148期，頁128-161。10. 李宗憲、楊士隆（2010），刑事司法戒治處遇制度之問題與困境研究，犯罪學期刊，13卷，1期，頁107-141。11. 李思賢（2013），海洛因成癮者之心理與藥物諮商方案，收於：楊士隆、李思賢編，藥物濫用、毒品與防治，頁339-363，台北：五南文化。12. 李思賢、David S. Festinger、楊士隆、楊浩然、吳慧菁、廖文婷、林依蒖、鄭凱寶、Karen L. Dugosh、Brittney L. Seymour（2015），毒品再犯風險與醫療分流處置評量工具之研究，收於：刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（18），頁157-183。13. 李思賢、吳憲璋、黃昭正、王志傑、石倩瑜（2010），毒品罪再犯率與保護因子研究：以基隆地區為例，犯罪學期刊，13卷，1期，頁81-106。14. 李榮耕（2008），Gideon`s Trumpet 被告的受有效辯護權，全國律師，12卷，12期，頁21-45。15. 李榮耕（2011），受拘捕犯罪嫌疑人於訊問中之受辯護權，月旦法學雜誌，192期，頁45-62。16. 李維（2005），行為主義中文版譯序，收於：John Broadus Watson著，李維譯，行為主義，頁i-xv，台北：知書房。17. 周漾沂（2013），論被害人生命法益處分權之限制－以刑法父權主義批判為中心，臺北大學法學論叢，88 期，頁209-260。18. 林孟皇（2009），設置專業法庭的時代背景、必要性與問題解決之道，司法改革雜誌，74期，頁13-20。19. 林建陽、陳玉書、柯雨瑞、張智雄、呂豐足（2007），我國當前毒品戒治政策之省思與建議，收於法務部編，刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（10），頁283-322。20. 林臻嫻（2013），論毒品條例第24條第2項之「應依法追訴」－評最高法院100年台非字第51號判決暨100年度第一次刑事庭會議決議，刑事法雜誌，57卷，1期，頁27-49。21. 林儹紘（2012），論當前刑事政策下的施用毒品者─以我國的刑罰規制為中心，警大法學論集，23期，頁67-88。22. 法務部（2016），105年法務統計年報，法務部統計處編印。23. 邱獻輝（2010），物質濫用與依賴的基本概念探究，諮商與輔導，289期，頁38-42。24. 柯耀程（2013），量刑辯論構想的思辨，中央警察大學法學論叢，24期，頁29-56。25. 紀致光（2014），緩起訴處分戒癮治療之回顧與展望，犯罪學期刊，17卷，2期，頁193-212。26. 唐心北（2011），DSM-5診斷標準的改變Part II－DSM-5中物質及成癮疾患（Substance and Addictive Disorders）之主要改變，DSM-5通訊，1卷，4期，頁10-12。27. 唐心北（2013），DSM-5物質相關及成癮障礙症，DSM-5通訊，3卷，4期，頁6-7。28. 張天一（2009），兩岸保安處分制度之比較──以施用毒品之保安處分為中心，軍法專刊，55卷，4期，頁137-158。29. 張麗卿（2016），毒品濫用及其戒治，月旦法學雜誌，258期，頁116-131。30. 許恒達（2017），國際法規範與刑事立法：兼評近期刑事法修訂動向，臺大法學論叢，46卷，特刊，頁1257-1330（2017年）。31. 湯德宗（2005），論憲法上的正當程序保障，收於：行政程序法論，頁167-210，台北：元照出版。32. 黃正雄（2013），美國毒品法院與社區監督制度，檢察新論，13期，頁290-311。33. 黃家嫻、劉慧玲、侯玟里（2012），一位海洛因成癮者行為改變歷程之照護經驗－跨理論模式之應用，精神衛生護理雜誌，7卷，1期，頁41-48。34. 楊士隆、李宗憲（2013），藥物濫用之處遇制度－美國毒品法庭，收於：楊士隆、李思賢編，藥物濫用、毒品與防治，頁237-272，台北：五南文化。35. 楊秀儀（2007），論病人自主權─我國法上「告知後同意」之請求權基礎探討，臺大法學論叢，36卷，2期，頁229-268。36. 楊冀華（2017），美國毒品法庭計畫與我國附命完成戒癮治療緩起訴處分之比較，矯正期刊，6卷，2期，頁20-44。37. 廖定烈、鄭若瑟、吳文正、黃正誼、陳保中（2013），物質成癮及治療：國內臨床服務的十年發展，家庭醫學與基礎醫療，28卷，11期，頁299-304。38. 蔣凱若、陳采蕙、陸汝斌、周桂如（2005），物質濫用患者之認知行為治療，長庚護理，16卷，2期，頁181-189。39. 盧映潔（2006），刑事制裁體系：第四講－保安處分，月旦法學教室，43期，頁70-79。40. 謝如媛（2005），修復式司法的現狀與未來，月旦法學雜誌，118期，頁41-51。 41. 謝如媛（2007），夢想或現實？由紐西蘭經驗看修復式司法之可能性－以法院轉介之修復式司法方案為中心，成大法學，14期，頁121-166。42. 謝如媛（2011），論美國毒品法庭制度─從懲罰到醫療的刑事司法實踐，收於：國立政治大學刑事法學中心編，刑事法學的新視野，頁259-262，台北：元照出版。43. 謝如媛（2014），緩刑的刑事政策意涵：嚴罰趨勢下的寬典？，臺大法學論叢，43卷，4期，頁1609-1664。44. 謝煜偉（2005），寬嚴並進刑事政策之省思，月旦法學雜誌，126期，頁131-157。45. 嚴健彰（2014），成癮諮詢與預防復發，諮商與輔導，347期，頁4-12。（三）碩博士論文1. 李元棻（2015），以特別預防角度探討緩起訴制度，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。2. 李柏昇（2017），吸毒者處遇政策變遷（1998-2017）：制度論的解釋，國立台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文。3. 李茂生（1982），人犯設施外處遇，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。4. 周暉念（2009），假釋決定之要件、程序與救濟程序之探討，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。5. 林儹紘（2008），從社會復歸觀點論長期刑之受刑人處遇，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。6. 施奕暉（2013），施用毒品行為刑事政策與除罪化之研究，國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文。7. 楊冀華（2017），毒品施用者處遇效能之追蹤研究，中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文。8. 蔡維恬（2007），國家管制施用毒品行為之正當性？，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。9. 蕭彣卉（2007），病人與犯人：台灣百年來吸毒者的軌跡，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。（四）其他（官方報告、報章雜誌、關係文書、進修報告）1. 王作仁（2008），國內引進藥事法庭/酒後駕駛專責法庭-結合醫療與司法體系建立酒藥癮治療模式可行性初探，97年度行政院衛生署及所屬醫院醫事人員出國進修計畫，網址：http://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/report_download.jspx?sysId=C09803253&fileNo=001（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。2. 王作仁（2017/4/8），毒品法庭跨領域防治 美國這樣做，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20170408/37610961（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。3. 司法院（2017），司法院就設置毒品專責法庭評估意見書，司法改革國是會議第5分組第4次會議議題5-2-2，網址：https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9NObfZ1vI2WN0YteGJTZDRIekk/view（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。4. 立法院（2017/5/10），立法院第9屆第3會期第13次會議議案關係文書院總字308號，委員提案第20750號，立法院議案整合暨綜合查詢系統，網址：http://lci.ly.gov.tw/LyLCEW/agenda1/02/pdf/09/03/13/LCEWA01_090313_00052.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。5. 朱學恒（2018/8/2），這樣的修法哪叫向毒品宣戰，ETtoday新聞雲論壇（雲論），網址：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20160802/746849.htm（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。6. 即時新聞（2016/8/4），毒品醫療前置化引論戰 台大教授提「毒品法庭」，自由時報，網址：http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1784936（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。7. 吳景欽（2018/8/5），吸毒醫療前置化已存在，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20160805/37336457（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。8. 林達（2017/12/4），創建毒品法庭 升級作業系統，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20171204/1252792/（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。9. 林達（2017/3/16），新設毒品法庭翻轉毒品政策，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20170316/1077021/（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。10. 林達（2017/4/5），毒品法庭保安處分是反毒新解方，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20170405/37607874（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。11. 林達（2017/4/9），運用毒品法庭 帶動觀護分流，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20170409/1094081/（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。12. 法務統計資訊網，網址：www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。13. 法務部，毒品施用者戒癮治療概況分析，網址：http://www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw/RJSDWEB/common/WebListFile.ashx?list_id=1484（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。14. 法務部，毒品情勢分析（下），網址：http://antidrug.moj.gov.tw/dl-2350-3b0649b4-0b06-455b-ae6f-7f0ee6ce2f15.html（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。15. 法務部，矯正機關收容施用毒品者及其再犯情形，網址：http://antidrug.moj.gov.tw/dl-2307-173afd1d-2858-4635-a9cc-3da8f9c0d989.html（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。16. 許春金、陳玉書、蔡田木（2013），毒品施用者處遇及除罪化可行性之研究，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究。17. 黃正雄（2012），替代療法之發展現況，赴美國康乃爾大學法學院研習出國報告，網址：http://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/report_download.jspx?sysId=C10100483&fileNo=001（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。18. 黃名琪（2017/4/20），這樣做 才有助毒品戒癮治療，蘋果日報，網址：https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20170420/37624303（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。19. 楊士隆、蔡德輝、張伯宏、李宗憲、莊淑婷、黃天鈺（2008），戒治機構內成癮性毒品施用者之管理與處遇模式建構，法務部委託研究。20. 楊淳卉（2016/7/5），毒品問題嚴重 立委提修法勒戒前先戒癮治療，自由時報，網址：http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1752016（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。21. 管婺媛（2018/5/8），提設立毒品法庭 立委：有效打擊毒品犯罪，聯合報，網址：https://udn.com/news/story/6656/2449432（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。22. 盧映潔（2017），書面意見，司法改革國是會議第5分組第4次會議議題5-2-2，網址：https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9NObfZ1vI2WTXk3NnBLeVpwX0U/view（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。23. 蕭白雪（2017/8/14），設毒品法庭…蔡英文：該做 司法院長：再研究，聯合報，網址：https://udn.com/news/story/9939/2640704（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。24. 賴佩璇（2017/5/25），司改國是會議 兩派論戰是否設「毒品法庭」，聯合報，網址：https://udn.com/news/story/7315/2484014（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。二、英文部分（一）專書1. Dawn Moore. 2007. Criminal Artefacts: Governing Drugs and Users. Canada: UBC Press.2. E. Allan Lind and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.3. Greg Berman & Aubrey Fox. 2010. Trial & Error in Criminal Justice Reform: Learning From Failure. New York: Urban Institute Press.4. Greg Berman & John Feinblatt. 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem- Solving Justice. New York: The New Press.5. James L. Nolan. 1997. The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century’s End. New York: New York University Press.6. James L. Nolan. 2003. Reinventing justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.7. James L. Nolan. 2009. Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing: The international Problem-Solving Courts Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.8. Jennifer Murphy. 2015. IIllness or Deviance? Drug Courts, Drug Treatment and the Ambiguity of Addiction. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.9. Jerome Bruner. 2003. Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.10. Joan Dunayer. 2001. Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood: Ryce Publishing.11. Joann L. Miller & Donald C. Johnson. 2009. Problem solving courts: a measure of Justice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.12. Kevin White. 2008. Drug Court Justice: Experiences in a Juvenil Drug Court. New York. Peter Lang Publishing.13. Lawerence Baum. 2010. Specializing the Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.14. Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, Richard A. Posner. 2013. The Behavior Of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.15. Martin Mayer. 2006. The Judges: a penetrating exploration of American courts and of the new decisions-hard decisions-they must make for a new millennium. New York: Truman Talley Books.16. Martin Shapiro. 1986. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago & London: University Of Chicago Press.17. Mitchel P. Roth. 2011. Crime and Punishment: A history of the Criminal Justice System. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.18. Mitchell B. Mackinem and Paul Higgins. 2008. Drug Court: constructing the moral identity of drug offenders. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.19. Rebecca Tiger. 2012. Judging Addicts: Drug Courts and Coercion in the Justice System. New York: New York University Press.20. Tom Ginsburg, Tamir Moustafa. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.（二）期刊與專書論文1. Alex Stevens, Daniele Berto, Wolfgang Heckmann, Viktoria Kerschl, Kerralie Oeuvray, Marianne Ooyen van, Elfriede Steffan & Ambros Uchtenhagen. 2005. Quasi-Compulsory Treatment of Drug Dependent Offenders: An International Literature Review, Substance Use & Misuse 40(3): 269-283.2. Allison D. Redich. 2013. The Past, Present, and Future of Mental Health Courts, Pp. 147-161 in Problem Solving Courts : Social Science and Legal Perspectives, edited by Richard L. Wiener & Eve Brank. New York: Springer-Verlag New York.3. Brain MacKenzie. 2015. The Judge is the key component: The importance of procedural fairness in drug-treatment courts. Court Review 52: 8-34.4. Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler. 2006. The Use of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Law School Clinical Education: Transforming the Criminal Law Clinic. Clinical Law Review 13: 605-634.5. Bruce J. Winick. 2002. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts, Fordham Urban Law Journal 30(3): 1055-1103.6. Caitlinrose Fisher. 2014. Treating the Disease or Punishing the Criminal?: Effectively Using Drug Court Sanctions To Treat Substance Use Disorder and Decrease Criminal Conduct. Minnesota Law Review 99(2): 747-781.7. Cary Heck & Aaron Roussell. 2007. State Administration of Drug Court: Exploring Issues of Authority, Funding and Legitimacy. Criminal Justice Policy Review 18(4): 418-433.8. Cary Heck, Aaron Roussell, Scott E. Culhane. 2009. Assessing the Effects of the Drug Court Intervention on Offender Criminal Trajectories: A Research Note, Crime Justice Policy Review 20(2): 236-246.9. Christine H. Lindquist, Bryn Ann Herrschaft, Pamela K. Lattimore. 2014. Reentry Courts. Pp.4351-4360 in Encylopidia of Crimology and Criminal Justice, edited by Bruinsma, Gerben, Weisburd, David. New Ork: Springer Verlag New York.10. Christopher Slobogin. 1995. Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Five Dilemmas to Ponder. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1(1): 193-219. 11. Clare Cappa. 2006. The Social, Political and Theoretical context of drug courts, Monash University Law Review 32(1): 145-176.12. Daniel M. Fetsco. 2011. Early Release From Prison in Wyoming: An overview of Parole in Wyoming and Elsewhere and an Examination of Current and Future Trends. Wyoming Law Review 11(1): 99-122.13. David B. Rottman. 2000. Does effective therpeutic jurisprudence requrie specialized courts (and do specialized courts imply specialist judge) ?. Court Review 37(2): 22-27.14. David B. Wexler. 2005. Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Clinical Legal Education and Legal Skills Training: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Rehabilitative Role of the Criminal Defense Lawyer. Thomas Law Review 17(3): 743-773.15. David B. Wexler. 2014. New Wine in New Bottles: The Need to Sketch a Therapeutic Jurisprudence “Code” of Proposed Criminal Processes and Practice. Arizona Summit Law Review 7: 463-480.16. David De Matteo, Sarah Filone and Casey LaDuke. Methodological, Ethical, and Legal Considerations in Drug Court Research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29: 806-820.17. David S. DeMatteo, Douglas B. Marlowe and David S. Festinger. 2006. Secondary Prevention Services for Clients Who Are Low Risk in Drug Court: A Conceptual Model. Crime and Delinquency 52(1): 114-134.18. Deborah J. Chase & Peggy F. Hora. 2000. The Implications of TherapeuticJurisprudence for Judicial Satisfaction. Court Review 37: 12-20.19. Eric Lane. 2003. Due Process and Problem Solving Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 3(3): 955-1026.20. Faith E. Lutze & Jacqueline Van Wormer. 2014. The Reality of Practicing the Ten Key Components in Adult Drug Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 53: 351-383.21. Francis A. Allen. 1978. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal in American Criminal Justice. Cleveland State Law Review 27: 147-156.22. Gerald Dworkin. 2015. Defining Paternalism. Pp. 17-29 in New Perspectives on Paternalism and Health Care, edited by Thomas Schramme, Springer International Publishing.23. Greg Berman & Aubrey Fox. 2010. The Future of Problem-Solving Justice: An International Perspective, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Relegion, gender & Class 10: 1-24.24. Greg Berman & John Feinblatt. 2001. Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer. Law and Policy 23(2): 125-140.25. Greg Berman. 2000. What is a Traditional Judge Anyway? Problem Solving in the State Courts. Judicature 84(2): 78-85.26. Hepburn, J. R., & Harvey, A. 2007. The effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court? Crime & Delinquency 53: 255-280.27. James Duffy. 2011. Problem-Solving Courts, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Constitution: If Two is Company, is Three a Crowd?. Melbourne University Law Review 35: 394-425. 28. James L. Nolan. 2002. Therapeutic adjudication. Society 39(2): 29-38.29. James L. Nolan. 2010. Harm Reduction and the American Difference: Drug Treatment and Problem-Solving Courts in Comparative Perspective. Health Care Law and Policy 13: 31-47.30. James L. Nolan. 2011. Redefining Criminal Courts: Problem Solving and the Meaning of Justice Pp. 3-31 in Law and Courts Current Perspectives from Infotrac, edited by George Ackerman, Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.31. Jane M. Spinak. 2003. Why Defenders Feel Defensive: The Defender`s Role in Problem-Solving Courts. American Criminal Law Review 40: 1617-1622. 32. Jeffrey A. Butts. 2011. Introduction: Problem-Solving Courts. Law & Policy 23(2): 121-124.33. Jelena Popovic. 2006. Court Process and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Have We Thrown The Baby Out With The Bathwater. E-Law Journal 1: 60-77.34. Jeremy Travis & Joan Petersilia. 2001. Reentry reconsidered: a new look at an old question. Crime Delinquency 47(3): 291-313.35. Jeremy Travis. 2000. But they all come back: rethinking prisoner reentry, Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century 7: 1-11.36. Joel Gross. 2010. The Effects of Net-Widening on Minority and Indigent Drug Offenders: A Critique of Drug Courts. Maryland Law Journal Race Religion, Gender & Class 10: 161-178.37. John A. Bozza. 2007. Benevolent behavior modification: understanding the nature and limitations of Problem-Solving Courts. Widener Law Journal 17(1): 97-143.38. John Braithwaite. 2002. Restorative Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Criminal Law Bulletin 38(2): 244-262.39. John Feinblatt & Derek Denckla. 2001. What Does It Mean To Be a Good Lawyer?: Prosecutors, Defenders, and Problem-Solving Courts, Judicature 84: 206-214.40. John L. Todd. 1918. The meaning of Rehabilitation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 80(6): 1-10.41. John S. Goldkamp 2000. The Drug Court Response: Issue and Implications for Justice Change. Albany Law Review 63: 923-961.42. John S. Goldkamp, Michael D. White, Jennifer B. Robinson. 2001. Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues 31(1): 27-72.43. John Terrence A. Rosenthal. 2002. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Drug Treatment Courts: Integrating Law and Science. Pp. 145-171 in Drug Court in Theory and in Practice, edited by James L. Nolan, New York: Aldine de gruyter.44. Judith S. Kaye. 2004. Delivering Justice Today: A Problem-Solving Approach. Yale Law and Policy Review 22: 125-151.45. Judy H. Kluger et al. 2001. The Impact of Problem-Solving on the Lawyer`s Role and Ethics, Fordham Urban Law Journal 29(5): 1893-1924.46. Kerwin Kaye. 2015. Rehabilitating the ‘drugs lifestyle’: Criminal justice, social control, and the cultivation of agency. Ethnography 14(2): 207-232.47. Mae C. Quinn. 2007. An RSVP to Professor Wexler`s Warm Therapeutic Jurisprudence Invitation to the Criminal Defense Bar: Unable to Join You, Already (Somewhat Similarly) Engaged. Boston College Law Review 48(3): 539-595.48. Mae Quinn. 2001. Whose Team Am I on Anyway: Musings of a Public Defender about Drug Treatment Court Practice. New York University Journal of Law and Social Change 26: 35-75.49. Malcolm M. Feeley & Joathan Simon. 1992. The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implication. Criminology 30(4): 449-474.50. Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel. 2001. Drug Treatment courts and Emergent Experimentalist Government. Vanderbilt Law Review 53(3): 831-883.51. Michael C. Dorf. 2006. Problem-Solving Courts and the Judicial accountability deficit. Pp. 309-328 in Public Accountability, Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, edited by Michael W. Dowdle, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.52. Michael D Clark. 2003. A Change-Focused Approach for Judges. Pp. 137-147 in Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts, edited by Bruce J Winick and David B Wexler. Carolina Academic Press.53. Michael Tonry & Mary Lynch. 1996. Intermediate Sanctions. Crime & Just 20: 99-144.54. Micheal Foucault. 1997. A Birth of Biopolitics, Pp. 73-79 in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (The Essential Works of Micheal Foucault, 1954-1984), edited by Paul Rainbow. New York: The New Press.55. Morris B. Hoffman. 2000. The Drug Court Scandal. North Carolina Law Review 78(5): 1439-1531.56. Morris B. Hoffman. 2001. Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Neo-Rehabilitationism, and Judicial Collectivism: The Least Dangerous Branch Becomes Most Dangerous. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29(5): 2063-2098.57. Morris B. Hoffman. 2011. Problem-Solving Courts and the Psycholegal Error. University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 160(1) 129-139. 58. Nicky Padfield. 2011. Judicial Rehabilitation? A view from England. European Journal of Probation 3(1): 36-49.59. O`Hear, Michael M. 2009. Rethinking Drug Courts: Restorative Justice as a Response to Racial Injustice. Stanford Law & Policy Review 20: 463-500.60. Ole Jacob Madsen. 2014. Therapeutic Culture, Pp.1965-1968 in Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, edited by Thomas Teo. New York: Springer-Verlag New York.61. Pat O’Malley. 1996. Risk and Responsibility, Pp. 189-207 in Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government, edited by Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne and Nickolas Rose. Abingdon: Routledge.62. Peggy Fulton Hora, William G. Schma, JohnT.A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74(2): 439-538.63. Peggy Fulton Hora. 2011. Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice 2(1): 7-52.64. Peter Raynor & Gwen Robinson. 2009. Why Help Offenders Arguments for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy. European Journal of Probation 1(1): 3-20.65. John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Annette McGaha and Roger A. Boothroyd. 2003. The Broward Mental Health Court: process, outcomes, and service utilization. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26(1): 55-71.66. Philip Bean. 2002. Drug Courts, the Judge, and the Rehabilitative Ideal. Pp.235-254 in Drug Court in Theory and in Practice, edited by James L. Nolan. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.67. Rekha Mirchandani. 2008. Beyond Therapy: Problem-Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State. Law & Social Inquiry 33(4): 853-893.68. Richard C. Boldt. 2009. A Circumspect Look at Problem-Solving Courts. Pp. 13-32 in Problem-Solving Courts: Justice for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Paul C. Higgins & Mitchell B. Mackinem. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.69. Richard C. Boldt. 2014. Problem-Solving Courts and Pragmatism, Maryland Law Review 73: 1120-1172.70. Robert G. Madden & Raymie H. Wayne. 2015. Constructing A Normative Framework For Therapeutic Jurisprudence Using Social Work Principles As A Model. Touro Law Review 18(3): 487-502.71. Robert V. Wolf. 2008. Breaking with tradition: Introducing problem solving in conventional courts. International Law, Computer & Technology 21(1): 77-93.72. Roblin Mackenzie. 2008. Feeling Good: the Ethopolitics of Pleasure, Psychoactive Substance Use and Public Health and Criminal Justice System Governance: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Courts in the United States of America. Social and Legal Studies 17(4): 513-533.73. Samantha Jeffries. 2005. How Justice ‘Get Done’: Politics, Mangerialism, Consumerism, and Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Current Issue in Criminal Justice 17: 254-268.74. Scott Vrecko. 2009. Therapeutic Justice in Drug Court: Crime, Punishment and Societies of Control. Science as Culture 18(2): 217-232.75. Scott W. Henggeler. 2007. Juvenile drug courts: emerging outcomes and key research issues. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 20(3): 242-246.76. Shane Butler. 2013. The symbolic politics of the Dublin drug court: The complexities of policy transfer. Drug: education, prevention and policy 20(1): 5-14.77. Shannon Portillo, Danielle S. Rudes & Faye S. Taxman. 2016. The Transportability of Contingency Management in Problem-solving Courts. Justice Quarterly 33(22): 267-290.78. Shannon Portillo, Danielle S. Rudes, Jill Viglione and Mattew Nelson. 2013. Front-stage stars and backstage producers: The role of judges in problem-solving courts. Victims & offenders 8(1): 1-22.79. Susan Daicoff. 2006. Law as a Healing Profession: The "Comprehensive Law Movement", Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal. 6: 1-62.80. Susan H. Brown, Sara G. Gilman, Ellen G. Goodman, Robbie Adler-Tapia, Steven Freg. 2015. Integrated Trauma Treatment in Drug Court: Combining EMDR Therapy and Seeking Safety. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research vol.9(3): 123-136.81. Tamar M. Meekins. 2006. “Specialized Justice”: The Over-Emergence of Specialty Courts and the Threat of a New Criminal Defense Paradigm. Suffolk University Law Review 40: 1-55.82. Tamar M. Meekins. 2007. Risky Business- Criminal Specialty Courts and the Ethical Obligation of Zealous Criminal Defender. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 12(1): 75-126.83. Timothy Casey. 2004. When Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Problem-Solving Courts and the Impending Crisis of Legitimacy. SMU Law Review 57: 1459-1520.84. Toby Seddon. 2007. Coerced drug treatment in the criminal justice system: conceptual, ethical and criminological issues, Criminology and Criminal Justice 7(3): 269-286.85. Vanja Bajović. 2010. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem-Solving Courts, Pregledni Članci 15(8): 257-269.（三）碩博士論文1. Leah C. Georges. 2014. Procedural Due Process in Modern Problem-Solving Courts: An Application of the Asymmetric Immune Knowledge Hypothesis, PhD diss, University of Nebraska.（四）其他（官方與民間報告、未出版文獻、線上影音）1. Adult Drug Court Standards Vol. II. 2015. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3tTMY3qkkU (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).2. Arielle W. Tolman. 2010. The Rebirth of the Rehabilitative: The Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Available at http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=etd_hon_theses (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).3. Aubrey Fox & Robert V. Wolf. 2004. The Future of Drug Courts: How States are Mainstreaming the Drug Court Model. Available at https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/futureofdrugcourts.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).4. Betty Gurnell, Meg Holmberg and Susan Yeres. 2014. Starting a Juvenile Drug Court: A Planning Guide. Available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/NCJFCJ_JDC_PlanningGuide_Final.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).5. Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2000. Emerging Judical Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale. Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182504.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).6. Caroline S. Cooper. 2001. Juvenile Drug Court Program, U.S. Department of Justice. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184744.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).7. Center for Court innovation. 2006. Problem-Solving Justice: A Law School Course. Available at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/psjlawschoolcourse.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).8. Cetre for justice innovation. 2015. Problem-solving courts: An evidence review. Available at http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Problem-solving-courts-An-evidence-review.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).9. Christopher J. Mumola. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at http://csdp.org/research/satsfp97.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).10. Douglas B. Marlowe, Carolyn D. Hardin, Carson L. Fox (NADCP). 2016. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts in United States. Available at http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/2014/Painting%20the%20Current%20Picture%202016.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 11. Douglas B. Marlowe. 2010. Research Update on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts. Available at https://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Research%20Update%20on%20Juvenile%20Drug%20Treatment%20Courts%20-%20NADCP_1.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).12. Drug Court Standards - NADCP Chief of Science, Law and Policy Dr. Doug Marlowe. 2013. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJi1udGWxrM (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).13. Gallup. 2016. Confidence in Institutions. Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).14. Gerald Dworkin. 2017. Paternalism. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).15. Jamey Hueston. 2011. Sanctions and Incentives: A Review of What Works and Why. Available at http://www.wellnesscourts.org/files/Sanctions%20%20Incentives%20JHueston%20.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018)16. Jeffrey N. Kushner, Roger H. Peters. 2014. A Technical Assistance Guide For Drug Court Judges on Drug Court Treatment Services, BJA Drug Court Technical Assistance Project. Available at https://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/initiatives/drug-court/upload/A-Technical-Assistance-Guide-for-Drug-Court-Judges-on-Drug-Court-Treatment-Services.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).17. John Ashcroft, Deborah J. Daniels, Domingo S. Herraiz, NADCP. 1997. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/205621.pdf (last visited Jan. 24, 2017).18. John S. Goldkamp & Doris Weiland. 1993. Assessing the Impact of Dade County’s Felony Drug Court. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/145302.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018) 19. Patrick A. Langan & David J. Levin (BJS Statisticians) 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf(last visited Mar. 18, 2018).20. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer. 2009. America’s Problem Solving Courts: The Criminal Costs of Treatment and the Case for Reform. Available at https://www.nacdl.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=20217 (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).21. National Association of Drug Court Professionals & National Drug Court Institute. 2009. List of Incentives and Sanctions. Available at http://ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/sanctions_and_incentives_ndci_annotated_document.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).22. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 2013. Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards: Volume I. Available at http://www.allrise.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/AdultDrugCourtBestPracticeStandards.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 23. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 2015. Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards: Volume II. Available at http://www.allrise.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/AdultDrugCourtBestPracticeStandards.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 24. National Drug Court Institute. 2002. Ethical Considerations for Judges and Attorneys in Drug Courts. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197080.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).25. National Drug Court Institute. 2003. Critical Issues for Defense Attorneys in Drug Courts. Available at https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/Mono4.CriticalIssues.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).26. National Legal Aid & Defender Association. 2002. Ten Tenets of Fair and Effective Problem-Solving Courts. Available at http://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/11204/742/Ten%20Tenets%20of%20Fair%20and%20Effective%20Problem%20Solving%20Courts.pdf?sequence=3 (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).27. Office of Justice Programs. 1999. Reentry Courts: Managing the Transition from Prison to Community. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/sl000389.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).28. Paula M. Ditton. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/bojs_mental_health_and_treatment_of_inmates_and_probationers_1999.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).29. Robert Wolf. 2005. California’s Collaborative Justice Courts: Building A Problem-Solving Judiciary. Available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California_Story.pdf(last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 30. Sarra L. Hedden, Joel Kennet, Rachel Lipari, Grace Medley, Peter Tice. 2014. Behavioral Health Trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Available at https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/NSDUH-FRR1-2014.htm (last visited Mar. 18, 2018). 31. Sirotich & Frank. 2006. Reconfiguring Crime Control and Criminal Justice: Governmentality and Problem-Solving Courts. University of New Brunswick Law Journal. Available at https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reconfiguring+crime+control+and+criminal+justice%3a+governmentality+and...-a0163435967 (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).32. Susan Yeres, Betty Gurnell and Meg Holmberg. 2005. Making Sense of Incentives and Sanctions in working with the Substance Abuse Offender. Available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/incentivesandsanctions_july_2009%282%29_0.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 20188).33. The Sentencing Project. 2017. Trend in U.S. Correction. Available at http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).34. Thomas D. Barton. 2002. Preventive Law: A Methodology for Preventing Problems. Available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/dispute_resolution/bartonprevent.authcheckdam.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).35. United Nations Office on Drug and Crime. 2003. Investing in drug abuse treatment: A discussion paper for policy maker. Available at https://www.unodc.org/docs/treatment/Investing_E.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).36. USA Today. 2006. USA Today/HBO Drug Addiction Poll. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-07-19-addiction-poll.htm (last visitied Mar. 18, 2018).37. William G. Meyer. 2007. Constitution and Other Legal Issues in Drug Court. Available at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2007/interim/drugcourt/legalissues.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2018).三、日文部分（一）專著1. 丸山泰弘（2015），刑事司法における薬物依存治療プログラムの意義：「回復」をめぐる権利と義務，東京：日本評論社。（二）期刊與專書論文1. 甘利航司（2012），非拘禁的措置と社会内処遇の課題と展望。刑事立法研究会編，非拘禁的措置と社会内処遇の課題と展望，頁36-72，東京：現代人文社。2. 謝如媛（2007），社会内処遇をめぐる台湾の現状ー2005年の法改正を中心に，刑事立法研究会編，更生保護制度改革のゆくえー犯罪をした人の社会復帰のために，頁328-349，東京：現代人文社。3. 謝如媛（2009），薬物乱用に関する台湾の法規範と刑事政策，矯正講座，29号，頁111-143。4. 森村たまき（2007），ドラッグ・コートの10の構成要素，石塚伸一編，日本版ドラッグ・コート―処罰から治療へ，頁89-98，東京：日本評論社。5. 森村たまき（2007），ドラッグ・コート前史―アメリカにおける薬物政策の変遷，石塚伸一編，日本版ドラッグ・コート―処罰から治療へ，頁72-76，東京：日本評論社。6. 西村直之（2013），薬物依存とは何か？～回復支援の限界を超えるために～，石塚伸一編，薬物政策への新たなる挑戦──日本版ドラッグ・コートを越えて，頁205-215，東京：日本評論社。7. 尾田真言（2007），ドラッグ・コート制度，石塚伸一編，日本版ドラッグ・コート―処罰から治療へ，頁80-89，東京：日本評論社。（三）其他1. 叁議院議事錄情報（2011/11/24），第179回国会法務委員会第4回，http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/kaigijoho/shitsugi/179/s065_0003.html（最後瀏覽日：2018/3/18）。 zh_TW
