美國法對於受刑人地位的態度，可區分為四大時期：國家奴隸時期、不介入理論時期、權利時期及權利衰退時期。由拒絕承認受刑人為基本權利主體的國家奴隸時期，到避免介入獄政事務的不介入理論時期，再至完全開放救濟大門的權利時期，目前則因受刑人濫訴之問題，進入權力衰退時期，開始透過各種法案限制受刑人提起訴訟的權利，其中最重要者為受刑人訴訟改革法案。經筆者觀察，我國目前司法實務對於受刑人地位的態度，應已度過美國法上之國家奴隸時期，而處於不介入理論時期與權利時期的交界地帶。美國受刑人訴訟改革法案的預防性救濟條款的精神，我國可透過行政訴訟法第4條及第8條規定加以實現。而窮盡訴訟救濟途徑條款，就行政法上之意義而言，類似於我國的訴願先行制度；就民事法上之意義而言，則類似國家賠償法之協議先行主義。至受刑人訴訟改革法案中的非財產上損害條款，本文以為，未涉及身體健康之侵害行為，對於受刑人所造成的傷害，有時比單純生理上之侵害更為嚴重，且我國民事訴訟法第249條第2項規定已足達到避免受刑人濫訴之目的。況我國目前尚無美國法「受刑人訴訟爆炸」之情形，實不宜預設未來必定會發生大量無意義的受刑人訴訟，而完全禁止受刑人針對監獄機關未造成其生理上損害之行為，請求非財產上損害賠償。又受刑人訴訟改革法案中之律師費用條款，我國法律扶助法相關規定亦足達到防止受刑人濫訴之目的，故對於受刑人申請法律扶助之要件，我國應無特別立法限制之必要。而訴訟救助條款之立法精神，我國民事訴訟法及行政訴訟法亦有相似之制度。因此，關於我國應否植入美國受刑人訴訟改革法案相關規範的問題，本文持保留之態度。

The Prison Act of the Republic of China (R.O.C) was enacted in 1945. Although the Prison Act has amended several times, it doesn't allow prisoners of the R.O.C the right of access to the court until now. The Judicial system of R.O.C refused to review prisoner complaints regarding conditions of confinement as well.Before 20th century, both state and federal courts of the United States held that a prisoner had the status of a ”slave of the state”. Prior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the courts then came up to a more liberal rule that recognized that ”lawful incarceration brings about necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system”, which called the hands-off doctrine. Started from the 1960s, prisoners' rights movement boomed, federal courts became a welcome harbor for the incarcerated. However, prisoner success in federal litigation to reform prisons began to decline in the 1980s, the Congress passed The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) in 1996, which amended and supplemented the U.S. Code in a number of ways in order to restrict and discourage litigation by prisoners.This article introduces the significant provisions in the PLRA, including the prospective relief provisions, the exhaustion of administrative remedies provisions, the three strikes provisions, the emotional injuries provisions, and the in forma pauperis provisions. In brief, as we don't share the same historical background (the inmate litigation explosion) with the United States, and our legal system can achieve the same goal the PLRA pursues, the provisions mentioned above may not be the answer to our legal system.