關於刑前強制治療之處所，1999 年修正之刑法第91 條之1 係規定「令入相 當處所施以治療」；保安處分執行法第78 條是規定，強制治療之處所為醫療院 所。法務部在上開關於刑前強制治療之規定修正後，指定具有性罪犯治療經驗之 臺北、臺中、高雄三所監所，暫時接受執行刑前保安處分之受處分人。然而，執 行機關交由監獄以拘束人身自由方式執行刑前強制治療之權宜措施並不符合程 序正義之要求。 本文以一位受刑前強治療處分宣告，又同時獲有緩刑宣告之個案為例，除說 明該名個案之案情外，並分析執行機關將個案發監交由監所執行強制治療處分之 過程是否合法妥適。本文認為執行機關於未經進行「該件執行之指揮是否必須以 拘束人身自由方式為本案治療之必要方法」的評估之前，自不應該率然地就將所 有受刑前強制治療保安處分宣告之受處分人一律發監執行。更何況強制治療之保 安處分依法應於醫療處所為之，現行執行機關權宜措施地將受處分人，全部送往 監所執行治療處分之作法已達10 幾年，顯有因行政怠惰而侵犯人權之虞。 本文建議執行機關於接受刑前強制治療宣告之受處分人時，除應在指揮發交 執行前，進行醫療評估以決定刑前強制治療之執行方式外，執行處所也應該於醫 療機構內進行。

With regard to the place for compulsory therapy before penalty, clause 91-1 of criminal law amended in 1999 stipulated “Order the person at a proper place for therapy”. Clause 78 of Rehabilitative Measures Execution Act stipulated that compulsory place was a medical institution. Ministry of Justice,hence, designated Taipei Prison, Taichung Prison and Kaohsiung Prison as the places for compulsory therapy. It5s against the due process of law that the executive agency commits said persons to the prison to execute the compulsory therapy before penalty. Based on a case of compulsory therapy declared person with probation pronouncement at the same time, this article explains said case, and also analyzes if the process that executive agency commits the case to the prison is proper. This article affirms that an executive agency shouldn’t hastily commit all said case persons to prison before the estimate of whether restricting personal’s freedom is necessary. Furthermore, the therapy must be done in a medical institution. The present executive polity has been executed more than 10 years. It is doubtful that administrative idleness has obviously infringed on human rights. This article suggests that the executive agency must make a medical estimate before executing the compulsory therapy. Besides, the execution place should be a medical institution.