法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
鐵窗內有隱私?-以受刑人入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查的合憲性為例(Are Prisoners Having Privacy? -Give Examples on the Constitutionality of Cavities Search when Enter Prison and Correspondence Inspection)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 辛年豐
出版日期: 2012.06
刊登出處: 台灣/輔仁法學第 43 期/1-70 頁
頁  數: 70 點閱次數: 1978
下載點數: 280 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 辛年豐
關 鍵 詞: 隱私人性尊嚴隱私合理期待隱私合理要求私密空間特殊需求受刑人行政搜索
中文摘要: 在當代,人們總是重視自己的隱私,其意指要每個人都擁有不欲人知而專屬於自己的秘密。事實上,隱私也常與人性尊嚴這樣一個最高位階的人權連結,因此,只要我們承認一個人是人,我們即應確認其應具有隱私權。在社會運作下,許多人沒有足夠的時間與財富,他及他們的孩子無法正常地成長及生活,並容易誤入歧途,在一連串的訴訟程序後被送入監獄,呈現出一個結構性的社會問題。事實上,一旦他們被送入監獄,即為社會輿論及政治力破壞殆盡,這兩道力量一再地打擊他們。多數人或許有幸被教育,並認為受刑人並沒有做為一個人應有的人格,從而,受刑人也不配享有人性尊嚴及適當的隱私了。然而,這樣的想法不僅殘酷而不理性,也是愚蠢而無法根本地解決社會問題。今日,倘若我們欲排除這樣的不正義,就必須重開市民論辯,使每個人知悉一個簡單的道理,即「受刑人與是人」,我們不能恣意地剝奪其隱私。事實上,在監獄中侵害隱私權的情形無所不在,許多行動都讓受刑人感受到不受尊重。本文即討論受刑人是否具有隱私權,並以入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查為例,討論目前監獄行政措施的合憲性。
英文關鍵詞: PrivacyHuman DignityExpectation of PrivacyRational Requirement of PrivacyIntimate SpaceSpecial NeedsInmateAdministrative Searches
英文摘要: In cotemporary, people always respect for everyone’s privacy. It means everyone has their own secrets. Actually, privacy is often connected with human dignity, which is the highest level of human right. Therefore, as long as we admit a person is a human, we should confirm he or she has privacy. In modern society, much people don’t have enough time and money; however our government can’t take care of them. They neither receive enough education, nor obtain sufficient attention from society or country, nor earn adequate respect from members of this world. Their children can’t growth normally and easy to go on the track, then commit a crime and put them into the prison during the trial proceeding. Without doubt, those social problems are constructional problem in the world, no matter where you are. In fact, once they are put into the jail, they are destroyed thoroughly by the public opinion and political force. The both strength strike them together once again. Maybe we have been educated that the prisoner has no character to be a person.
Herewith, of course, prisoners have no human dignity, and properly have no privacy. However, these methods are not only cruel and irrational, but also stupid. It can’t solve problems fundamentally. Today, if we want to eliminate the injustices, we will open the citizen debate again. During deliberation, let everyone knows a simple conception, “prisoners are still human”, that we can’t deprive of their privacy abusively. By these ways, we should understand, “Prisoners, only lose their own liberty, but who still have foundational dignity to be a person.” Indeed, privacy is one of the ways to embody human dignity.
If we don’t admit prisoners have privacy, it almost identify that they are not people. Actually, the violation of privacy in prison is omnipresent. All of these actions make prisoners feel they are not respected. This article will discuss if prisoners have privacy or not, and give examples on cavities search when prisoners enter prison and correspondence inspection, review the constitutionality of both administrative action.

目  次: 壹、問題之提出
貳、受刑人的地位
一、司法解釋下的特別權力關係
二、特別權力關係崩解下的受刑人地位
參、限制隱私權合憲性的判斷標準
一、隱私權的憲法基礎
(一)外國法制的參考
(二)我國實務上的運作
二、隱私權的概念範疇
三、限制隱私權的合憲性操作
(一)隱私權核心範疇的探究
(二)隱私合理要求的判斷:「隱私合理期待」概念的再檢討
(三)對「特殊需求」概念的質疑
(四)是否具備合理懷疑的考量
四、限制隱私權之合憲性的判斷流程
肆、侵害受刑人隱私權的合憲性探討
一、安全檢查的本質與內容
(一)安全檢查的目的及形式
(二)入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查的內容
二、受刑人是否具有私密空間
三、入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查是否否定人性尊嚴
四、受刑人對於書信內容是否有隱私的合理要求
五、受刑人之隱私與公益間的權衡
(一)書信安全檢查的行政目的
(二)現行書信安全檢查的合憲性檢討
伍、結語

相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
辛年豐,鐵窗內有隱私?-以受刑人入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查的合憲性為例,輔仁法學,第 43 期,1-70 頁,2012年06月。
返回功能列