在监狱办企业 Inside job to stop reoffending

Peter Foster, managing director of the family-owned Fosters Bakery in Barnsley, in the north of England, has discovered an unusual answer to a familiar recruitment problem. The town is home to more than a dozen big bakeries, and workers were used to flitting from one job to another, making it hard to raise skill levels or productivity.	彼得•福斯特(Peter Foster)是英格兰北部巴恩斯利市家族企业Fosters Bakery的董事总经理，他发现了一种不同寻常的方法，来解决一个常见的招聘问题。该市拥有超过12家大型面包店，员工们过去经常跳槽，这使得技能或生产率很难提高。
He found the solution behind bars. Invited by Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, he visited nearby Lindholme prison where the governor wanted to equip inmates for life outside. Yorkshire Forward built a bakery there and Mr Foster agreed to take serving prisoners on day release, and those leaving prison, to work for him. Their discipline and loyalty are excellent, he says, and “I would rather have them paying taxes than living off them”.	他在监狱找到了解决办法。受地区开发机构Yorkshire Forward的邀请，他参观了附近的林德赫尔墨监狱(Lindholme)，监狱长希望让服刑的罪犯为出狱后的生活做好准备。Yorkshire Forward在那里开了家面包店，福斯特同意让处于监外执行期的犯人和那些即将出狱的犯人为他工作。他表示，他们的纪律性和忠诚度非常高，“我更希望让他们缴税，而不是依靠他们。”
Fosters is one of a growing band of companies in the UK that has turned to the prison population for staff, helped by a government drive to cut reoffending rates by finding ex-offenders long-term jobs rather than training opportunities.	英国有越来越多的公司聘用犯人做员工，Fosters Bakery只是其中之一。这些公司得到了一项政府举措的帮助。政府希望为前罪犯找到长期工作，而不只是让他们得到培训机会，借此降低再犯罪率。
The National Offender Management Service (Noms), an arm of the Ministry of Justice, believes that securing a job is the best way to stop ex-inmates returning to prison, yet they face many challenges in finding employment. Noms set up a corporate alliance in 2005 that now has more than 100 member companies.	英国司法部(Ministry of Justice)下属部门国家罪犯管理局(National Offender Management Service)认为，找到一份工作是阻止出狱罪犯重新回到监狱的最佳方法，然而在寻找就业机会方面他们面临众多挑战。该局于2005年创办了一个企业联盟，如今已有100多家会员公司。
Among them is Wiltan, which makes magnetic components including transformer cores in Pontypool, south Wales. Alison Itani, director, says it has had great difficulty finding staff and “had to learn to think beyond the traditional recruitment routes”.	其中包括威尔士南部庞蒂浦市的Wiltan，该公司生产包括变压器铁芯在内的各种磁性元件。公司董事艾莉森•伊塔尼(Alison Itani)表示，很难找到员工，因此“不得不学着跳出传统招聘模式来思考问题。”
She says: “There is undoubtedly a large pool of under-utilised skilled men and women in our prisons who are due for release into our communities, and who are keen and willing to work. Those we have employed have been exemplary employees.”	她表示：“毫无疑问，在我们的监狱里有很多未得到充分利用的高技能人才，他们即将刑满释放，回到社会中去，他们渴望并愿意工作。我们聘用的那些刑满人员都成了模范员工。”
The justice ministry says every year almost 12m hours are worked in prison industries, valued at about £30m ($49m, €35m) to businesses. “In 2007 almost 40,000 prisoners [out of 65,000] went into training or employment at the end of their sentence,” it says. The reoffending rate for all offenders dropped from 49 per cent to 40 per cent in 2000-2007.	英国司法部表示，每年监狱产业的工作时间几乎达到1200万小时，为企业创造了约3000万英镑（合4900万美元）的价值。据司法部称：“2007年，（在6.5万名犯人中）近4万人在刑满时接受了培训或找到了工作。”2000年至2007年，所有犯人的再犯罪率从49%降至40%。
The terms of operation for Noms prevent it undercutting the private sector because of the low wages paid – typically between £10 and £20 a week. In fact, 80 per cent of the work done in prisons is for the internal market, such as growing food for use in the institution's kitchens.	根据国家罪犯管理局的工作规定，他们不得支付工资较低的优势和私营部门抢生意——其向犯人支付的周薪一般介于10英镑至20英镑之间。实际上，在监狱中进行的工作，有80%针对内部市场，例如种植粮食供该局的厨房使用。
Summit Media is one business born in a prison, which has since expanded beyond its walls. The online marketing company was set up by Hedley Aylott and his mother Marion in 2000. A chorister and pianist, Mr Aylott started staging productions inside prisons during university vacations.	Summit Media是在监狱里诞生的一家企业，随后该公司把业务扩大到了监狱以外。这家在线营销公司由赫德利•艾洛特(Hedley Aylott)和他的母亲马里恩(Marion)于2000年创办。作为唱诗班歌手和钢琴演奏家，艾洛特在大学假期期间就开始在监狱里演奏他的作品。
In 1994, after graduating in engineering from Nottingham University, he was taking a postgraduate degree in Manchester when he was invited to work with inmates at Strangeways prison. It was the height of the gang wars that saw the city dubbed Gunchester. He and gang members formed Pro-ject X with DJ Justin Robinson and released a top 20 hit, “The Summit”, calling for an end to violence.	1994年从诺丁汉大学(Nottingham University)工程系毕业后，艾洛特在曼彻斯特继续攻读硕士学位。这时他受邀与斯特兰奇韦斯监狱(Strangeways)的犯人合作。当时是帮派冲突最严重的时期，使曼彻斯特获得了“枪之城”(Gunchester)的称号。艾洛特和一伙黑社会成员以及流行音乐主持人贾斯汀•罗宾逊(Justin Robinson)组建了Pro-ject X乐队，并发行了一首呼吁结束暴力的单曲The Summit，跻身歌曲排行榜20强。
Then, in 1995, he recalls: “I had a call from an East Yorkshire prison called the Wolds. The governor said: ‘I don't like your record but I would like you to come and do something here.'”	他回忆道：接着在1995年，“我接到一个电话，来自东约克郡一家名为沃尔兹(Wolds)的监狱。监狱长说‘我不喜欢你的唱片，但我希望你能过来，在这里做些事情。'”
Within weeks Mr Aylott was running workshops and staging performances inside. But he became frustrated that skills such as set design, musical composition and building websites were wasted after the production finished. “I decided to try to set up an online company within the prison. Well, you only live once, don't you?” Mrs Aylott, then head of education at Norwich prison, left her job to work with her son at the new venture.	几周之内，艾洛特在监狱里举办了学习班并进行表演。但在作品完成后，场景设计、音乐制作和建立网站等技能都被白白浪费了，对此他很失望。“我决定在这所监狱里创办一家互联网公司。你只能活一次，不是吗？”时任诺维治监狱(Norwich)教育主管的艾洛特夫人离开原职，与她的儿子共同打造这家新企业。
Summit set up shop in the prison's former garden gnome factory in 2001. Since then it has grown considerably, raising turnover from £100,000 to £21m in 2008-2009. Its clients include Argos and Play.com, two of the UK's top internet retailers.	Summit Media于2001年在这所监狱过去制作花园小矮人的工厂内开设了店铺。此后，该公司迅速壮大，2008年至2009年，营业额从10万英镑增至2100万英镑。其客户包括英国最大的两家互联网零售商Argos和Play.com。
Charlotte Broughton-May, a former prison officer who runs Summit operations at the Wolds, sifts through dozens of applications from prisons all over the country. The company will not accept anyone who has a conviction for intimidating witnesses or information technology fraud. It interviews them and makes a presentation to senior executives.	前监狱官夏洛特•布洛登-梅(Charlotte Broughton-May)在沃尔兹监狱经营Summit Media的业务，她是从来自全国各地监狱的申请者中脱颖而出的。该公司不会接受那些犯有胁迫证人罪或信息科技欺诈罪的犯人。公司会对他们进行面试，并向高管进行汇报。
Mr Aylottexplains: “I say ‘I am going to trust you and give you as much responsibility as possible, so do not let me down.' In our experience, very few people do.”	艾洛特解释道：“我会说‘我会相信你，并让你承担尽可能多的责任，所以不要让我失望。'根据我们的经验，很少有人会让我们失望。”
The prisoners, some of whom are on day release, earn £20 a week but Mr Aylott denies that cheap labour is a factor in the company's success. In fact, he says, “helping these people achieve success is a lifetime's work fraught with difficulty”. Not many businesses would be willing to take on the risk, he says, adding: “We have clients coming to visit and . . . getting patted down.”	犯人的周薪为20英镑，其中一些犯人正处于监外执行期。但艾洛特否认廉价劳动力是该公司成功的一个因素。实际上，他表示，“帮助这些人取得成功是充满艰辛的毕生工作”。愿意承担这一风险的公司不多，他表示，并补充称：“我们会有客户来访……他们还要接受搜身。”
But, he says, the prisoners help the business: “They are down-to-earth and come up with different ways of doing things.”	但他表示，罪犯帮助了这家企业：“他们踏实肯干，可以提出很多不同的做事方法。”
BCW Engineering, in Burnley, also seeks out ex-offenders. Alec Cassie, managing director, says: “It takes up a lot of management time. But it is well worth it to fix broken people.”	位于伯恩利的BCW Engineering也在挑选刑满释放人员聘为员工。该公司董事总经理亚历克•卡西(Alec Cassie)表示：“这占据了大量管理时间。但为了让他们重新做人，这是非常值得的。”
Summit has trained more than 350 ex-inmates, and 10 work for the company, out of a staff of 59. There are also 18 at the Wolds itself.	Summit Media培训了350多名刑满释放人员，该公司59名员工中，有10名刑满释放人员。此外还有18人在沃尔兹监狱工作。
Atti Ikbal, a lifer, is one of them. Aged 36, he has spent most of his adult life in prison, and is now running a team ensuring that customers' websites are running smoothly. “I love it,” he says. “If I am not getting it right someone is losing money.	被判无期徒刑的艾提•伊克伯(Atti Ikbal)就是其中之一。36岁的他，大部分成人时期都是在监狱度过的。如今，他管理着一个团队，负责确保客户网站平稳运行。“我喜欢这份工作，”他表示，“如果我出了差错，就会有人亏损。”
“If I didn't have this job I don't know what I would do with my life. For the first time, I am looking forward to getting out.”	“如果我没有得到这份工作，我不知道我的一生该怎么办。我第一次开始渴望离开监狱。”
How do employees feel about working alongside ex-offenders? Mr Foster says his 200-plus staff are sympathetic, and that some employees “have friends or family in prison. They understand”.	与曾经的罪犯一起工作，员工们又作何感受呢？福斯特表示，他的200多名员工都富有同情心，一些员工“的朋友或家人也在坐牢。他们能够理解”。
He believes former prisoners have generally made good employees. “Prison life has given them discipline. You get a great employee, who will stick with you through thick and thin.”	他认为，坐过牢的人一般都能成为优秀员工。“监狱生活教会了他们服从纪律。你会得到一名能够与你同甘共苦的优秀员工。”
	译者/梁艳裳 source: http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001027829/ce

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) is the name given to arrangements in England and Wales for the "responsible authorities" tasked with the management of registered sex offenders, violent and other types of sexual offenders, and offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to the public.^[1] The "responsible authorities" of the MAPPA include the National Probation Directorate, HM Prison Service and England and Wales Police Forces. MAPPA is coordinated and supported nationally by the Public Protection Unit within the National Offender Management Service. MAPPA was introduced by theCriminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and was strengthened under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Following the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Lay Advisors have been introduced to sit on Strategic Management Boards (SMBs) who have the strategic oversight of MAPPA. These are members of the public who have been selected to help with the development and monitoring of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and aim to boost public confidence in the arrangements. There should be two Lay Advisers on each SMB in England and Wales, a total of 84 nationally.

Contents   [hide]  1 Assessment of offenders 1.1 Risk assessment 1.2 Management plan 2 Criticism of the MAPPA 3 Similar systems in other countries 3.1 Scotland 3.2 Northern Ireland 4 Case studies 4.1 Duncan 4.2 Alistair 5 References 6 External links

[edit]Assessment of offenders

The legislation requires a three stage process for managing dangerous offenders. First, these three agencies in conjunction with partner agencies, such as social services and health agencies, need to identify three types of offender living in their area:

• Category 1: Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs),
• Category 2: All offenders who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more in prison for a sexual or violent offence and whilst they remain under Probation supervision.
• Category 3: Anyone else who poses a "risk of serious harm to the public" who has received a conviction and whose risk would be better managed in a multi-agency setting.

An offender cannot be in more than one MAPPA Category, and if multiple offences are committed, they will default to the lowest number category. For instance, if an offender committed an attempted murder, but also committed a sexual assault, they would be a Category 1 offender rather than a Category 2 for the duration of their Sex Offender Registration. Following the completion of their registration, if they were still under Probation supervision/licence then they would become a Category 2 offender. If the supervision/licence had expired, then it would be up to the local area MAPPA if they qualify for Category 3 status.

The legislation then requires that the agencies conduct a formal risk assessment of each offender and allocate them to a tier of multi-agency management — known as level one, two or three.

• Level One represents the normal inter-agency management of the offender in the community by one agency, with some liaison.
• Level Two means that Multi Agency Public Protection meetings (MAPPs) will be held where the offender's management will be discussed between various parties involved in their case.
• Level Three is essentially the same as Level Two, except that senior management representatives will be in attendance and greater resources are expected to be used in the management of the offender.

Level Three are sometimes called the "critical few". These are offenders posing the highest possible level of risk to the public and normally necessitates a specific case conference to pool unusual agency resources and ensure a strategically coordinated risk management plan. These might be predatory sex offenders, recidivist arsonists, extremely violent offenders, dangerouslymentally ill offenders, domestic terrorists or people with dangerous personality disorders. At each MAPP meeting agencies have to share often confidential information, and will in many cases adopt a press strategy.

[edit]Risk assessment

Before a management plan is put in place a detailed risk assessment will take place to identify the circumstances and opportunities that are most likely to lead to a further serious offence in this particular offender and the steps that can help reduce this risk. This will study the offender's previous offending history, life circumstances, include psychological assessments (where relevant) and any work in prison that the offender has completed. The Police and the National Probation Service use a risk assessment tool called Risk Matrix 2000 which is assesses the statistical likelihood of re-offending by adult male convicted sex offenders only. The Probation Service use a nationally validated risk assessment tool called OASys which help predict the likelihood and circumstances of future offencing behaviour. For young offenders, the Youth Justice Board uses a system called ASSET which is specifically designed to understand the behaviours of offenders under the age of eighteen.

[edit]Management plan

A management plan is thus highly specific to each offender and their offending history, but might include any of the following:

• Accommodation at an Approved Premises (AP) where the offender can be monitored.
• A set of licence conditions such as having contact with children, or going within an exclusion zone in a town/city.
• A Civil Order such as a Sex Offender Prevention Order (SOPO) to prevent the offender doing certain activities, such as not entering a town where a victim resides, not to have unsupervised contact with children.
• A duty to report to an Offender Manager every week to undertake offending reduction counseling and work as part of their licence.
• In some very extreme cases there may be covert monitoring of offenders to protect the public.
• A disclosure of information to a member of the public for their protection.

The MAPPA system cannot guarantee the protection of the public as such, but can only "manage" the risks through the limited powers of each agency as effectively as possible. This means that all steps that can be legitimately taken by the agencies should be taken. MAPPA decision making is frequently fraught with dilemmas. For example, it is not uncommon for a MAPPA meeting to decide to disclose to a member of the public about an offender's risk to protect that individual or somebody else. However each time that a disclosure is made the Panel loses control of the way that information is used. Some sex offenders have been attacked and killed as a result of public animosity, and others "driven underground" where agencies can't manage them at all.

[edit]Criticism of the MAPPA

Points of criticism of the MAPPA include:

• Research has highlighted MAPPA arrangements are not uniformly applied and that standards, practice and procedure varies considerably between local areas.^[2]
• Apart from a one-off payment two years ago, there has been no extra funding for police, probation or prisons, or indeed other agencies for dedicated resourcing of MAPPA work.^{[citation needed]}
• The law on information sharing is complex and confusing, and includes a meshing of human rights, data protection, common law and defamation legislation.^{[citation needed]}
• Evaluation mechanisms of MAPPA are in most agencies immature and still in process of development. It is therefore hard to know how much these measures are tangibly adding to public protection.^{[citation needed]}
• The focus has been on level three cases, but level two cases can be extremely dangerous as well, and there has often been little or no evaluation of the management of these cases in reporting mechanisms.^{[citation needed]}
• Recent research indicates that there is inadequate training and professional support for staff working in Public Protection Arrangements across many parts of the country.^[2]

[edit]Similar systems in other countries

[edit]Scotland

MAPPA in Scotland is based on the systems in place in England and Wales, with a few minor differences. The most noticeable of these is that in England and Wales the "responsible authority" is made up of the Probation Service, the Police Service and HM Prison Services; whereas in Scotland they are made up of the Police Service, Social Work Scotland, Scottish Prison Service andNHS Scotland.

The arrangements are much newer than in England and Wales and while they have the policy in place to take Category 2 offenders, they do not yet do so. It is anticipated that Category 2 offenders will not be under Scottish MAPPA until after 2009.^[3]

On 31 March 2009, there were a total of 2967 registered sex offenders (RSOs) resident in Scotland’s communities (equating to 57.4 RSO’s per 100,000 of the Scottish population), which whilst generally consistent with the previous year’s figures indicates a slight decrease from 31 March 2008, when the recorded figure was 3131.^[4]

[edit]Northern Ireland

The Multi-Agency Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management (MASRAM) Arrangements were used in Northern Ireland. They were originally launched on 1 September 2001, but not to the same statutory footing as MAPPA in England and Wales. Following an inspection by Criminal Justice Inspection NI and a review of the circumstances around the re-offending by Trevor Hamilton and the death of Attracta Harron, it was announced that the MASRAM arrangements would be placed on a statutory footing and based on the MAPPA in England and Wales with the view to extend MASRAM to also cover what MAPPA calls Category 2 and 3.

Following the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 2008, from October 6, 2008, the MASRAM arrangements were placed on a statutory footing under a new name of the Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI). PPANI is very similar to the England and Wales MAPPA with the only minor differences being that certain names are different. For instance, for what the England and Wales MAPPA calls a Multi-Agency Public Protection (MAPP) meeting, PPANI calls it a Local Area Public Protection Panel (LAPPP).^[5] Unlike MAPPA in Scotland, PPANI also has in place two members of the public as Lay Members on their Senior Management Boards.^[6]

预审的法律解释

预审是一种司法程序

　　一、预审是一种司法程序

　　是刑事诉讼中的一个审判前的程序，叫预审程序（Preliminary Hearing）。根据美国较为权威的《布莱克法律词典》的解释：“预审是指（通常由治安法官主持进行的）决定是否有足够的证据起诉被告人的刑事听证程序。”[1] 美国联邦司法中心主编的法院工作人员培训教材《美国联邦地区法院刑事诉讼流程》中对预审的解释为：“一个指控前的听审，在该庭审中检察官必须提出足够的证据，以证明具有充分理由相信一项联邦犯罪已被实施且该犯罪系被告人所实施。”[2]而在大陆法国家学者看来：“预审法官确认犯罪事实，查证情节，集中所有迹象，力求证实作案人，这就是预审（D instruction）。”[3] 据此可以概括，预审（Preliminary examination）是一种刑事诉讼制度，是法官行使司法权对侦查和起诉进行审查和监督的活动。

预审有广义和狭义之分

　　。狭义的预审是指在刑事诉讼中，拥有司法审查权的主体依法对检控方准备起诉的案件进行审 查，以确定案件是否符合起诉的条件，从而决定是否应当起诉，将案件交付审判的程序。简而言之，狭义的预审仅指对检控方的起诉进行审查的程序，可以将其称之为“纯粹司法审查意义上的预审”，从各国立法来看，主要是指对较为严重的案件的公诉请求进行审查的程序。广义的预审是指在刑事诉讼中，拥有预审权力的主体依法参与刑事案件的侦查活动，并对检控方准备起诉的案件进行审查，以确定案件是否符合起诉的条件，从而决定是否应当起诉，将案件交付审判的程序。

　　简而言之，广义的预审不仅包括了对检控方的起诉进行审查，而且包括了一定程度上预审权力主体对侦查活动的参与和调控，亦即广义的预审涵盖了一定意义上的侦查程序，可以称之为“侦查兼司法审查意义上的预审”。从各国立法来看，在制度设计上，预审程序在两大法系存在着较大的差异，呈现出不同的具体特征。

源于英国

　　预审制度的诞生最早渊源于三百年前的英国，当时正是资产阶级革命时期，它最初的愿望和思想是民主与人权，但其革命的不彻底性决定了它的预审制度的繁杂和累赘。概之，预审的历史背景和司法背景是资产阶级的民主、平等、自由、博爱思想，以及关于国家的自然法和社会契约的理论，关于无罪推定、辩论式诉讼、自由心证等刑事诉讼理论，关于司法独立保障人权理论的勃兴。预审制度确立的主旨在于通过预审程序避免无罪者（或者说没有充足的证据证明其有罪者）被无端地送到法庭接受审判，保护其名誉不受到侵害，而在英美法系的刑事诉讼价值理念体系当中，尤其在美国刑事诉讼价值理念体系里，预审程序除了具有对公民个人权益之保障功能外，还在一定程度上表达了他们对诉讼效率的追求——将没有充足证据支持的案件排除在法庭审判之外，以节约刑事诉讼成本。这些法律思想中，多有闪光的民主精华。当我们的司法思想确定在以法治国、保障公民权益不受侵犯、对侵犯他人权益绳之以法等方面的时候，预审制度的思想有很多是值得我们借鉴的。

　　随着社会的发展，随着司法制度改革的深化，我国的预审制度也面临着新的挑战，必须经过系统的改革整合，促成预审制度的构建和应用。否则无法适应我国社会主义和谐社会的要求，无法适应以法治国的总体战略。


source：
http://baike.baidu.com/view/316503.htm

Megan's Law梅根法案與性侵害加害人出獄後的風險控管（转贴）

近日以來，因發生多起性侵犯出獄後在外再次犯案而引發的
「白玫瑰運動」及沸騰民怨，使性侵犯出獄後、假釋期間的安全性控管問題，
成為社會注目的焦點議題。不少婦幼團體都提出相關修法建議，
最知名的或許是引入美國「梅根法案」的精神，強化對性侵犯假釋、出獄後的監控；
其他另有化學去勢、擴大刑後強制治療範圍，甚至終身不得假釋的想法。
對此，主管機關內政部在日前提出性侵害犯罪防治法的修正草案，
除了決定修正刑法、使刑後強制治療的範圍可以溯及之外
(當然，這裡可能有違反法律不溯及既往、罪刑法定主義的爭議)，
其實並未完全採納婦幼團體的建議。也就是說，內政部的立場對於這些
即將假釋或出獄的性侵犯，並不打算效法美國「梅根法案」，
要求必須將性侵犯的個人資料全數、不受限制地公開，
而是透過強制登記制度，有限度供特定人查閱。
這裡，有一些比較法制上的想法，或許可以讓人再深思這個
社會安全與風險控管v.更生人人權保障的重大難題。
美國的「梅根法案Megan’s Law and etc.」其實是許多相關法律的概稱，
源於1994年New Jersey州的小女孩Megan Kanka遭住家附近的性侵犯性侵並殺害。
此後一系列的聯邦法令及州法令逐漸制定，開始嘗試對性侵犯出獄後的行為進行控管。
在聯邦法令層級，目前主要的規範是Sexual Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994；
但各州州法令的內容就有頗大歧異。
大致而言，美國各州的操作方式都可拆分為三個階段：
(1)報到登記。(2)網站公告，包含姓名、照片、住址。
(3)社區通報，使社區知悉加害人遷入居住。
其中在網站公告部分，普遍的作法是完全不受控制、審查(uncontrolled access)地
讓所有民眾可上網查詢所有被建檔的性侵犯資料，確認是否住家附近也住了性侵犯。
而社區通報制度又另外課予國家負有義務主動進行資訊散佈，
而不是等需要的人來申請查閱，目地自然是為了促進加害人的資訊可自由流通。
不過值得注意的是，類似像梅根法案這樣將性侵犯資料全面上網，
不受限制、不問身分地接受民眾查詢，其實目前全球只有美國採取如此激烈的方式。
在性侵犯出獄後再犯問題的討論也十分激烈的英國，就有不同的思維。
英國目前的制度是Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)，
主管機關Home Secretary反而比較強調家長責任，認為家長應多與子女溝通、
注意各種徵兆，而非急著要求政府應如何公告加害人資訊。
因此，英國政府較強調他們的資訊公告制度是in a controlled way，
亦即性侵犯的資訊並非不受限制地全面公開，警方可提供資訊的對象也是有限度的，
包括：學校首長、娛樂場所管理者、雇主、房東及家長等。
此外，警方在揭露性侵犯資訊時，裁量程序又細分為三階段：
(1)在個案中判斷有無提供必要，例如家長認為其子女經常與特定人接觸，
而且是在欠缺監控、私人、隱密的環境中頻繁接觸；
(2)警方還不能直接提供資訊，而是必須進一步判斷特定加害人是否
已對特定兒童少年產生嚴重傷害的風險(presents a risk if serious harm)。
(3)因此可以達到全面公開資訊的情形，也就只限於加害人行蹤不明時，
警方可在網站(www.ceop.police.uk)上公告資訊。
由此可以注意到，英國政府較強調警察機關必須逐一審核個案的事實背景之後，
再依據裁量決定是否要提供性侵犯資訊予特定人。
舉例而言，一位單親媽媽正在交往中的男友，經常協助照顧其女兒，
但媽媽此時卻聽聞這位男友竟有性侵前科。此時，MAPPA的考量點包括：
該女孩與加害人前次加害對象的年齡是否相近(挑選被害人的傾向)、
加害人出獄迄今表現、若加害人再犯可能產生的侵害狀況。
而在司法實務上，近年也陸續發生一些性侵犯資訊公開是否合法的爭議。
在上訴法院1999年R. v. Chief Constable of the North Wales Police and Others,
Ex parte Thorpe and Another, [1999] Q.B. 396判決中，
當事人夫婦二人都有多次嚴重性犯罪記錄、服刑甚久。
出獄後因各社區反彈而不斷搬家，最後在1997年搬到某個貨櫃屋聚集區。
但因該地即將舉辦復活節活動，有大量孩童會前來聚集，
警方於是威脅當事人必須限期搬離，否則就要告知該聚集區的房東關於他們的前科記錄，
而最終也因此導致這對夫婦被迫搬家。二人不服聲請救濟，上訴法院認為：
(1)為了落實歐洲人權公約(ECHR)對隱私權的保障，警方只有在
保護公益─特別是為保護孩童時─所必要時，才能使用該資訊。
(2)公布性侵加害人資訊相當敏感，因此只在有迫切的公益需求時才能允許。
在作成此決定前，警方應盡可能蒐集各式資訊，以準確衡量危險性；
警方公布前，另應先就取得資料內容與加害人溝通確認。
上訴法院最後認為，本案警方的考量應屬適當理性，
有必要將加害人夫婦二人的資訊提供予房東，以確保兒少安全。
由此一判決可以觀察到：(1)警方公布前應該有充分蒐證、利益衡量活動，
並與加害人勸說溝通(比例原則)，證明公布資訊確實是最後不得以的手段。
(2)警方只能將加害人資訊告知特定人，而不得逕行毫無邊際地告知全體社區居民。
另一案例，是高等法院2002年的Re C, [2002] EWHC 234判決。
該案加害人C過去有一系列性侵兒童的記錄，但從未被判刑。
先前地方主管機關已經獲得法院同意，可以提供其前科記錄給
任何C居住地的社福或警察機關。但本次社福、警察機關進一步請求法院
同意將C的記錄提供給所有可能租屋給C的housing association，
確保C的住處附近不會有孩童成為潛在被害人。
C不服，提起救濟後，高等法院認為：
(1)同意主管機關可將C的資訊，提供給目前租屋給C的housing association中的資深員工，
但拒絕主管機關將資訊提供給未來可能租屋予C的housing association，
因為法院必須進行利益權衡，而本案必須有實際且迫切的利益存在，方能同意所有請求。
處理此類案件必須衡量保護兒少的潛在利益，以及加害人的隱私、更生權利。
(2)本案C並未被判刑過，是以揭露其資訊，應只能在例外情形下允許：
有限度的揭露已能滿足上述保護兒少的目的；更進一步的揭露，
可能導致資訊的散布失控、增加對C及其家屬的侵害、升高C潛入地下犯案的可能，
最終還是使社區暴露在更高的風險之下。
由此一判決可以觀察到：(1)個案中進行利益衡量，揭露方式要更細緻多元。
(2)全面性揭露加害人資訊，未必有利於兒少保護。

source：
http://clockworkorange.pixnet.net/blog/post/35975969

undefined

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

The Crown Prosecution Service is the Government Department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.

The Crown Prosecution (检察部门)是个政府部门，該部門負責起诉英格兰和威尔士警察所调查的刑事案件。

As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales, we are responsible for:

作为在英格兰和威尔士的主要检控机关，我们的职责是：

• advising the police on cases for possible prosecution;
• 就可能起诉的案件提供意见给警方;
• reviewing cases submitted by the police;
• 审查警方提交的案件;
• determining any charges in all but minor cases;
• 判决除了轻微犯罪案件之外的所有指控;
• preparing cases for court;
• 准备法庭的案件;
• presenting cases at court.
• 在法庭提出案件。

source: 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/