| Summary: | 碩士 === 雲林科技大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 98 === On February 8, 2002, ROC’s Code of Criminal Procedure was promulgated, introducing the deferred prosecution system. In addition to including prosecutor’s burden of proof and party domination of evidence investigation, the litigation system featured prosecution review (indictment review), deferred prosecution, and committal for trial. Since deferred prosecution depends on the prosecutorial discretion, this policy effectively reduced litigations, utilized judicial resources more efficiently, and expanded prosecutorial discretion.
Since ROC stipulated the “Statute for Narcotics Hazard Control” in 1998, treatment for drug offenders included rehabilitation and compulsory drug abstention. Its objective was to provide medical treatment and help drug users reenter society. However, due to the increased recidivism rate of drug offenders and overcrowding prisons, the statute was challenged. An amended policy was introduced in 2008 to reduce litigations and wastes in judicial resources. It was called the “Statute for Narcotics Hazard Control,” offering a new supplementary deferred-prosecution system combined with drug abstention and treatment, which was referred to as the methadone maintenance treatment (MMT).
Based on the deferred prosecution system of ROC’s Code of Criminal Procedure, we evaluated similar systems in Japan, Germany, and USA from historic, comparative law, and case study perspectives. We compared the similarities and dissimilarities between the deferred prosecution system in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the supplementary deferred-prosecution system, which combines drug abstention and treatment under the Statute of Narcotics Hazard Control. To conclude this study, some suggestions for future law amendments are proposed.
|
|---|
