臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
近年我國人權意識高漲，受刑人之生活環境及給養狀況，逐漸受到大眾重視且獲得改善及宣揚；但也間接產生部分犯罪者或更生人，因承受不了經濟環境壓力而故意犯罪，只為入監執行求得安飽之事件發生。機構性處遇(監獄)促使受刑人復歸社會之功能逐漸受人質疑。因此，本研究以在監受刑人做為研究對象，探討其機構性處遇態度、機構性依賴對於其日後復歸預測之影響。
研究採量化分析法，透過問卷調查方式，在控制機關特性、區域特性下，針對台灣地區北、中、南、東共四區，各挑選一所矯正機關進行調查，最後挑選法務部矯正署臺北監獄、法務部矯正署臺中監獄、法務部矯正署高雄監獄、法務部矯正署宜蘭監獄共4個機關前往施測。研究共發出774份正式施測問卷，扣除無效問卷後共獲得579份有效問卷，回收率達74.8%。
研究結果顯示，受刑人不同控制變項之差異，會影響其對於機構性處遇之態度、機構性依賴程度及復歸預測之想法。此外，受試者之機構性處遇態度中各因子得分高低，與其機構性依賴得分有顯著相關；而在機構性依賴得分越高者，則其復歸預測量表中各正向因子得分皆越低。由此顯示受刑人機構性處遇態度會影響其機構性依賴之程度；而機構性依賴程度高低又對其日後復歸預測有顯著影響。另研究結果亦發現，高齡受刑人之機構依賴程度較其他受刑人高；而毒品犯者對於日後復歸之信心則顯低於其他犯罪類型之受刑人。
研究結論則以適應理論及壓力因應方式提出本研究之結論：本研究認為作為刑事司法體系最後一道防線的機構性處遇，其功能仍無法有效做到針對受刑人特性進行個別化矯正評估；因之，對部分受刑人而言，更有可能因為渠等出現表演性之正面適應傾向而造成受刑人對監所環境產生不正當的依附聯結，導致其社會復歸出現信心動搖的不利情境。本研究對於實務之相關建議為：1、預防方面：強化前門轉向策略，減少社會弱勢或社會適應能力不佳者進入矯正機構受到不良影響。2、治療方面：強化受刑人更生處遇。機構內應強化更生輔導，給予對復歸存有疑慮之受刑人鼓勵，引導其將依附於機構之心態轉向自由社會。機構外則建議可設置中間性處遇使受刑人甫出獄時不致感到無所適從，並能夠真正的重新開始其未來之人生。

Abstract
Owing to the rising awareness of human rights in recent years, the prisoners’ living environment and provision of foods has attached great importance and then been improved and publicized; however, it also brings some negative impacts indirectly, for instance, part of criminals or termers commit a crime intentionally to seek for a secure and satiate life in prison since they can’t bear the economic pressure. Accordingly, the social functions of institutional treatment (prisons) of helping criminals reform themselves and return to the society have been doubted. Therefore, the study takes the prisoners as the research subjects to explore the effects of their institutional treatment attitudes and institutional dependency on prediction of their reintegration.
The study adopts quantitative analysis method. Through the questionnaire survey, it selects a correctional institute from the north, middle, south and east areas of Taiwan under controlling of institutional and regional features, which finally selects four units for , i.e., Taipei Prison, Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice ; Taichung Prison, Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice ; Kaohsiung Prison, Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice and Yilan Prison, Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice. 774 pieces of questionnaires have been distributed totally, and 579 valid pieces are returned after excluding the invalid questionnaires, with a recovery rate of 74.8%.
The results show that the different backgrounds of prisoners will affect their attitudes to the institutional treatment, degree of institutional dependency and prediction of reintegration. In addition, the different scores in attitudes to the institutional treatment are significantly related to the scores in institutional dependency; while the person with a higher score in institutional dependency may result in a lower score in the positive factors of prediction of reintegration. It’s thus indicated that the prisoners’ attitude to the institutional treatment may affect the degree of institutional dependency which then exerts remarkable effect on the prediction of reintegration. Besides, it also reveals that the elderly prisoners perform a higher degree in institutional dependency than others, and the drug criminals’ confidence in reintegration is lower than other criminals.
The study proposes the conclusion in the form of adaptation theory and pressure coping methods. The study believed that the institutional treatment as the final defensive line of Criminal Justice System still fails to provide individual correctional evaluation based on the prisoners’ characteristics; thus for part of prisoners, it’s more likely to produce inappropriate dependences on the prison environment due to superficial positive adaptation tendency, which might result in unfavorable situations of losing confidence in reintegration. The study put forward some practical suggestions listed as below: 1) in terms of prevention, it shall focus on the strategy of front-end to reduce the negative effects accepted by the social vulnerable groups or people with bad social adaptation ability in the correctional institutions; 2) in terms of treatment, it shall highlight the reforming treatment of prisoners. The institution shall strengthen the regenerating tutor, encourage the prisoners with doubts in returning to society and transform their mental state of depending on institutions into the liberal society. It’s also recommended outside the institutions that the transition treatment should be established to make the prisoners feel not adapted to the society when they are discharged from prisons and start a new life fairly.

目錄
表目錄 III
圖目錄 V
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 4
第三節 名詞解釋 4
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 機構性處遇態度相關研究 7
第二節 機構性依賴相關研究 13
第三節 復歸預測相關研究 16
第四節 機構性處遇態度與機構性依賴之相關 19
第五節 機構性處遇態度與復歸預測相關 20
第六節 綜合評述 21
第三章 研究方法 23
第一節 研究架構及假設 23
第二節 研究工具編制與樣本抽樣 24
第三節 研究工具預試分析 27
第四節 研究資料分析方法 39
第四章 研究結果 41
第一節 研究樣本描述性統計 41
第二節 量表之探索式因素分析 44
第三節 量表之驗證式因素分析 50
第四節 受刑人背景變項與三量表間之差異比較 56
第五節 研究架構圖路徑分析 89
第五章 結論與建議 95
第一節 研究結果整理 95
第二節 綜合討論 100
第三節 研究建議 105
參考文獻 109

參考文獻
西文部分
Aida Y. Hass & Caryn E. Saxon. (2011). From the inside/out: Greene County Jail Inmates on Restorative ReEntry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
Arnulf Kolstad.(1996). Imprisonment as rehabilitation: Offenders assessment of why it does not work. Journal of Criminal Justice, P 332.
Bartollas Clemens. (1985). Correctional Treatment: Theory and Practice. London: Prertice Hall, Inc, .
Bedau A.Hugo. (1978). 「Retribution and the theory of Punishment」. Journal of Philosophy,(75), P 601-620.
Blumstein Alfred. (1983). Selective incapacitation as a means of Crimecontrol. American Behavioral Scientist ,27(1),P 87-108.
Bornstein D. Mingelgrin, & C. Rutte G. (1996). The effects of within-group communication on group decision and individual choice in the assurance and chicken team games. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(3), P 486–501.
Clemmer Donald. (1940). The Prison Community. New York: Halt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cohen S. (1996). Psychological stress, immunity, and upper respiratory infections. Current Directions in Psychological Science , P86-90.
D P Lawson ; C Segrin ; T D Ward (1996). The relationship between prisonization and social skills among prison inmates . The Prison Journal,76(3), P 293-309.
Goffman Erving. (1961). Asylums:Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York:Doubleday.
Hirschfeld RM, Klerman GL, Gough HG, Barrett J, Korchin SJ, Chodoff P. (1977). A measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment - J PERSONAL ASSESS ,vol.41,pp.610-618
Irwin John. (1970). The Felon. California: University of California Press.
Maaser B. (2006). Mental Health pre-Release Workshop: Inmate Attitudes Toward Release.Ohio: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Martinson Robert. (1974). What Works?-Questions and Answers about Prison Reform. Public Interest 35,Spring.
Maslow H.A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Mathiesen T. (1992). Prison on trial: A critical assessment. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Peter.G. Garabedian. (1963). Social Roles and Process of Socialization in the Prison.,Social Problems 2,139–152
Richard Lazarus & Susan Folkman. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York :Springer Publishing Company.
Ronald H.Aday. (1976). Institutional Dependency : A Theory of Aging in Prison. Oklahoma State: Oklahoma State University.
Rotman E. (1994). Beyond Punishment.in A. Duff and D.Garland(EDs) A Reader on Punishment. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stephen Stanko, Wayne Gillespie, Gordon A. Crews (2004). Living in Prison: A History of the Correctional System with an Insider's View. United States:Greenwood Pub Group.
Straus Robert. (1974). Escape from custody: A study of alcoholism and institutional dependency as reflected in the life record of a homeless man. New York City, U.S.: Harper & Row.
Sykes M.Gresham. (1958). The Society of Captives:A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton University Press.
Thomas Holmes & Richard Rahe (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11, P 213-218.
Thomas W.Charles. (1987). Corrections in American: Problems of the Past and the Present. Sage Publications Inc.
Tica & Roth, MG. (2012). Are Former Male Inmates Excluded from Social Life? European Journal of Probation 4(2), P 62-76.
Van Den Haag, Ernest. (1982). Could successful rehabilitation reduce the Crime rate? . Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73(3) P 1022-1035.
Wheeler Stanton. (1961). Socialization in Correctional Community. American Sociological Review 26, P 697-706.

中文部分
丁道源. (1987). 中外假釋制度之比較研究. 台北: 中華文化復興運動推行委員會主編.
丁榮轟. (2005). 我國重刑化假釋政策與假釋出獄人再犯歷程之研究. 犯罪與刑事司法研究, 143-189.
孔繁鐘譯. (1997). DSM-IV精神疾病的診斷與統計. 台北: 合記出版社.
王淑女等. (1991). 台灣的社會問題. 台北: 巨流出版社.
任全鈞、許華孚、何明哲. (2009). 高齡受刑人在監適應與挑戰. 警學叢刊，40(3), 頁 29-52.
李士特、林專文. (2010). 監獄學試題綜覽. 台北市: 保成出版社.
李軍豪. (2013). 長刑期受刑人自我效能、在監適應對復歸認知之影響研究. 國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣.
李清泉. (1993). 現代監獄學分析. 台南: 高長印書局.
李瑞金. (1999). 內政部老人虐待研究. 台北市: 內政部統計處.
沈欣怡. (1997). 諮商與輔導114, 30-32.
林茂榮、楊士隆. (2011). 犯罪矯正原理與實務. 台北: 五南出版社.
林儹紘. (2008). 從社會復歸觀點論長刑期之受刑人處遇. 國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣.
張春興. (2006). 心理學原理. 臺北市: 東華書局.
張春興. (1992). 現代心理學. 台北市: 東華書局.
許春金. (2003). 犯罪學. 桃園縣: 中央警察大學.
許詩潔. (2012). 生活壓力、社會支持對犯罪人社會復歸影響之研究. 中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文,未出版,桃園縣.
許福生. (2007). 刑事政策學. 臺北: 三民書局.
黃徵男. (2010). 21世紀監獄學-理論、實務與對策. 台北: 一品文化出版社.
楊士隆、林建陽. (2007). 犯罪矯正－問題與對策.台北: 五南出版社.
趙彥博. (2006). 少年矯正學校收容人副文化之研究-以明陽中學為例.國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣.
蔡敦銘. (1988). 矯治心理學. 台北市: 正中書局.
嚴建彰. (2003). 出獄人復歸社會更生歷程之研究－從復原力的觀點探討之. 國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣.
顧以謙. (2011). 受刑人標籤感受與社會排斥感之關聯性研究. 國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣.