頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 書評:第三造警政=Book Review: Lorraine Mazeroll& Janet Ransley, Third Party Policing (Cambridge University Press, 2005) |
---|---|
作 者 | 伍姿蓉; | 書刊名 | 執法新知論衡 |
卷期 | 8:1=15 2012.06[民101.06] |
頁次 | 頁73-97 |
分類號 | 575.8 |
關鍵詞 | 第三造警政; 典範遞移; 治理轉型; 成本效益; 公平; 責任; Third party policing; Paradigm shift; Transformation of governance; Cost-effect; Equity; Accountability; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 社區警政發展至今,已逾40餘寒暑,不少學者發現:社區警政在不同的地區,除了推行的方式不同之外,成果也不一。整體而言,社區警政成功的案例,並不普遍!當社區警政的理想愈來愈受到質疑時,另有呼聲建議是該做典範遞移的時候了!而呼應此一呼聲的警政思維,則是「第三造警政(third party policing)」的提出!第三造警政並非憑空而來,而是有二大因素造成其之興起。此二種因素為:(一)政府集權式管理的式微,分權式以及小而美政府,乃時代之趨勢。(二)民法與刑法的範疇界限日趨模糊。所謂第三造警政是指利用政府相關法規,讓警察成為聯絡平台,將相關單位、團體及個人納入,共同解決治安之問題。不同於問題導向警政之四個步驟(即:SARA,含:掃瞄、分析、回應及評估),第三造警政是事前即以法規加強犯罪預防,作者列舉數個先進國家以新增法規的方式來維持社會秩序,例如英國的「犯罪與失序法案(Crime and Disorder Act)」與「反社會行為法(Anti-Social Behavioral Act)」、新南威爾斯的「保護及父母責任法(Protection and Parental Responsibility Act)」、以及美國的「愛國法案(Patriot Act)」等。雖然實例證明第三造警政具有一定效益,然而也有其侷限之處,尤其在面對衡平公共利益與個人權利之挑戰時!本書從多面向的變動(包含政治的、經濟的與社會的方面),探討警政成本效益、公平及責任等問題,作者從不同的層面提出克服之道。從他山之石,我們可以學得許多的寶貴經驗與見解,本書的確值得推荐並好好研讀。 |
英文摘要 | “Community policing” has become the prevailing policing philosophy for over four decades. Scholars found that the strategies and effectiveness of community policing differ from places to places. Generally speaking, it is rare to find successful implementation in community policing. Therefore, some scholars articulate that it is time for paradigm shift. Due to transformation of governance, such as decentralized governments and the blur between criminal and civil laws, third party policing is on-trend. The book of “Third Party Policing” examines this growing phenomenon, arguing that it is the legal basis that defines it as a unique strategy which differs from problem-oriented policing. The authors listed some newly established regulations in developed countries, for example, ‘Crime and Disorder Act’ and ‘Anti-Social Behavioral Act’ in England, ‘Protection and Parental Responsibility Act’ in New South Wales, and ‘Patriot Act’ in America etc, to maintain social orders. There is evidence to prove the effectiveness of third party olicing; however, it still exists unavoidable side-effects and limitations, especially in balancing public and personal interests. The authors discussed the issues of cost-effect, equity, and accountability and offered the directions for the future. The book gives us food for thought and is worthy of reading. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。