:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:警察人員酒駕行為影響因素與防制對策之研究
作者:許明耀
作者(外文):HSU, MING-YAO
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:犯罪防治研究所
指導教授:楊士隆
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2018
主題關鍵詞:警察人員酒後駕車理性選擇情境預防Police officersdrunk drivingrational choicesituational prevention
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:131
論語為政篇:「道之以政、齊之以刑,民免而無恥。」近年在全民主張嚴懲酒駕的氛圍下,警察機關為防制員警酒駕以維護執法威信,與國家防制酒駕政策一般,多循威嚇主義,不斷地採行累加處罰與種種管制措施;惟在初始威嚇消退後,不但下降趨勢不再,也產生了肇逃、棄車躲藏、拒測等等副作用;威嚇並非長效的萬靈丹,應在懲罰之外再謀途徑。
為瞭解影響員警酒駕行為因素,本研究以警察的角度,蒐集員警人數眾多且轄區有不同發展與複雜度之某直轄市警察局,自2007年至2015年間酗酒習性及酒駕紀錄員警之通報與案卷資料242件個案,攫取個人、職場與情境三個面向的變項後,除次數分析與卡方檢定外,更以理性選擇理論的概念設計邏輯斯回歸分析模型,探討影響員警酒駕的面向與變項。另分別深度訪談有酒駕紀錄員警與有飲酒習性卻不酒駕之員警各4名,探討其酒駕或不酒駕的思考與選擇過程。再進而邀請學者、專家與警察管理階層共6名進行焦點座談,討論前述次級資料分析與深入訪談結果,並評析警政機關目前防制對策,再行綜合分析、比較與歸納所有質化與量化分析結果,提出對策。
研究發現無論是個人、組織或情境構面上均有影響的變項。邏輯斯回歸分析結果,顯示血液中的酒精濃度愈高酒駕的可能性愈大,而員警的婚姻狀況、違紀紀錄、所屬分局的複雜度、考績狀況及勤休狀況,均是達到顯著水準的影響變項;理性選擇概念設計下的模型適配度良好,且情境因素有重大影響。訪談結果亦見員警酒駕行為是理性選擇,但受到個人認知與當下情境影響,其理性是受限的,在飲酒愈多、理性愈減下,此時再嚴厲的處罰,均難經其思量。現行以威嚇為主的各種規範固有其基本的效用,仍須要能震撼人心才能達到一般預防目的;對違反者處遇要個別化,以達最佳之特別預防。在威嚇之外,可採多元化策略,可包括正面的鼓勵、非正式的社會控制或建立道德良知的宣導與教育以強化自我控制等。強調的是,跳脫以往以人為主的防制思維,情境預防是特別值得發展的策略方向。
The Confucian Analects put forth that “Lead through policies, discipline through punishments, people may be restrained but without a sense of shame." In recent years, as the public demands severe punishment for drunk drivers, law enforcement officials have also worked to prevent police officers from drunk driving to maintain the credibility of law enforcement. However, current policies mainly focus on increasing the severity of penalties through various regulations to deter police officers from drinking and driving. Nonetheless, the initial deterrent effect waned quickly and officers attempt to avoid punishment with tricks such as hit-and-runs, abandoning a car and hiding, and refusing to take a blood alcohol test. Therefore, punishment is not a panacea, and we should seek alternative means to deterrence.
To investigate the factors contributing to police officers’ drunk driving, data was collected from a large police department, located in a municipality with various zoning developments and complex social environment. Based on internal data, there were 242 cases involving officers' excessive drinking or drunk-driving behaviors from 2007 to 2015. The current study follows a rational choice model and examines the explanatory power of factors that belong to the following three dimensions: personal demographic characteristics, organizational factors, and situational factors. In addition to a frequency analysis and chi-square test, logistic regression was also used to assess the effects of the above factors in predicting police officers’ drunk-driving behavior.
In-depth interviews were also conducted with eight police officers, among which four of them had driven after drinking and the other four had never committed drunk-driving in the past (despite their frequent drinking habits) to understand their decision-making processes. Interviews focused on elucidating their thought processes and rationale behind their respective decisions regarding whether or not to drive after drinking. In addition, six scholars, experts, and police management personnel were invited to a panel to discuss the results from the secondary data analysis and interview results. Based on the available qualitative and quantitative data, they also provided insights on possible preventive measures for future development and policy recommendations.
This study found that police officers’ drunk-driving behavior could be explained by the rational choice theory. More explicitly, the choice to drink and drive was often based on previous experience, risk calculations, and the mentality that they could get away with the law. The logistic regression model based on the rational choice framework had a reasonably well model fit. In addition to a high blood alcohol concentration, there were other factors such as marital status, breach records, complexity of the police station they worked at, year-end performance evaluation, and on leave time were determined to be statistically significant in predicting officers' likelihood of engaging in drunk-driving behavior. Across all three dimensions, the situational factors had the most significant impact.
Although current regulations based on deterrence that have been implemented by police stations are generally effective, deterrence must shock the hearts of all colleagues to achieve the general prevention. Toward this end, perpetrators may be handled by their own department based on individual conditions to achieve the best special prevention effect. In addition, policies that reinforcing abstention rather than punishing the violation might have a better impact on some officers' subsequent behaviors. Alternatively, prevention strategies that rely on informal social control mechanism, or diverse educational activities emphasizing morality could also help police officers further exercise self-control. Finally, people-oriented prevention strategies have to be complemented with situational prevention tactics in order to effectively prevent the DUI of police officers.
一、中文部分(依筆劃順序)
王濟川、郭志剛(2003),Logistic迴歸模型:方法及應用,臺北市:五南圖書。
王邦安(2008),酒醉駕車決意歷程與預防對策之研究-以高雄地區為例(未出版之碩士論文),國立中正大學,嘉義。
王英傑(2007),基層警察人員工作壓力、情緒智力對其飲酒行為影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文),國立中正大學,嘉義。
王浩威(1998),台灣查甫人,臺北市:聯合文學。
王大維(2010),成年前期男性氣概建構之論述分析(未出版之博士論文),國立彰化師範大學,彰化。new window
石志偉(譯)(2001),社會工作研究方法(原作者Christine Marlow),臺北市:洪葉文化。
李湧清(1987),台灣省警察組織編制之研究,中央警察大學犯罪防治系印行。
李震山(2016),警察行政法論—自由與秩序之折衝,臺北市:元照出版有限公司。new window
李政賢(譯)(2009),訪談研究法(原作者:Irving Seidman),臺北市:五南圖書。
李文政(譯)(2015),社會科學研究法:資料蒐集與分析(原作者:Shaun Best),新北市:心理出版社股份有限公司。
邱皓政(2005),量化研究與統計分析,臺北市:五南圖書。
邱皓政(2006),量化研究方法(一):研究設計與資料處理,臺北市:雙葉書廊。
吳白金(2011),酒後駕車再犯危險因子之研究—以國道第八隊轄線為例(未出版之碩士論文),國立中正大學,嘉義。
吳明隆(2009),SPSS操作與應用—問卷統計分析實務,臺北市:五南圖書。
吳學燕(1990),論警察文化,警政學報第十七期,桃園:中央警官學校印行。
吳秀娟(2003),台灣地區警察人員飲酒行為之實證研究(未出版之碩士論文),中央警察大學,桃園。
林裕順(1996),警察管理的若干問題,收錄於許春金主編,警察行政概論,臺北市:三民書局,143-155頁。
林漢堂(2014),基層警察人員問題飲酒行為因素之研究—一般化緊張理論之驗證(未出版之博士論文),國立中正大學,嘉義。new window
林佳瑩、陳雅琪、吳永明、方奇葳等(譯)(2015),(原作者:Daniels F. Chambliss and Russell K. Schutt),臺北市:雙葉書廊。
林子忻(2017),酒杯裡的謀殺—從飲酒文化到反酒駕運動的百年發展史,(原作者:Barron H. Lerner )臺北市:啟示出版
周愫嫻、曹立群(2007),犯罪學理論及其實證,臺北市:五南圖書。
胡幼慧(2008),質性研究,理論、方法及本土女性研究實例,臺北市:巨流。
高淑清(2008),質性研究的18堂課--首航初探之旅,高雄市:麗文文化事業股份有限公司。
翁萃芳(2001),警察人員之次文化及相關因素之探討(未出版之碩士論文),國立中正大學,嘉義。
翁萃芳(2002),台灣地區警察人員社會支持與工作壓力對其飲酒行為之影響,中央警察大學警學叢刊雜誌社,警學叢刊第33期第1卷。new window
翁萃芳(2003),臺灣警察人員的飲酒行為,應用心理研究第18期,227-248頁。new window
許春金(1996),警察行政概論,臺北市:三民書局。
許春金(2009),人本犯罪學,臺北市:三民書局。
許春金( 2013),犯罪學,臺北市:三民書局。
許福生(2012),犯罪與刑事政策,臺北市:元照出版社。
陳信良、黃信銀、林友三(1997),警察之應酬文化及地方人士交往之分析,收錄於警察學專題研究二,林燦璋、李湧清、鄭善印等合編,桃園:中央警察大學出版。313-332頁。
陳向明(2002),社會科學質的研究,臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。new window
陳筱娟(2013),酒後駕車成因分析及其防治對策之研究(未出版之碩士論文),中央警察大學,桃園。
陳逸欣(2014) ,警察人員酒後駕車的風險評估與危機管理之研究-以台中市 政府警察局為例(未出版之碩士論文),東海大學,台中。
孫豔玲、何源、李旭陽(2011),從範例學SPSS統計分析與應用,新北市:博碩文化。
莊明貞、陳怡如(譯)(2005),質性研究導論(原作者:Corrine Glesne),臺北市:高等教育文化事業有限公司。
張文菘(2011),酒醉駕駛人特性及其影響因素之實證研究(未出版之博士論文),中央警察大學,桃園。new window
張可婷(譯)(2010),焦點團體研究法(原作者:Rosaline Barbour)新北市:韋伯文化國際出版公司。
傅祖壇、葉寶文(2006),酒後駕車行為決策之研究,運輸計劃季刊,第35卷第3期。PP.337-364。new window
婁子才(2013),運用情境犯罪預防策略防制員警酒駕之研究(未出版之碩士論文),中央警察大學,桃園。
梅可望(1987),警察學原理,再版,桃園:中央警官學校。
梅可望、陳明傳、李湧清、朱金池、章光明、洪文玲(2008),警察學,桃園:中央警察大學。
黃光雄、簡茂發(1993),教育研究法,臺北市:師大書苑。
黃富源、范國勇、張平吾(2003),犯罪學概論,臺北市:三民書局。
黃富源(2016),非侵入性之方法、次級資料分析、官方統計資料之利用,收錄於許春金、楊士隆、周愫嫻、鄭瑞隆、沈勝昂……與侯崇文等人所著,刑事司法與犯罪學研究方法,臺北市:五南圖書,195-206頁。new window
黃慧娟(2013),防制酒駕之法制對策—兼論日本酒駕治理相關法律,交通學報,第13卷第2期。87-118頁。new window
賈樂吉(1993),從組織文化理論探討我國警察職業人格之研究(未出版之碩士論文),中央警察大學,桃園。new window
董旭英、黃儀娟(譯)(2000)。次級資料研究法(原作者:David W. Steward),新北市:弘智文化事業有限公司出版。
楊明仁、鍾奇諺、郭千綺、何啟功、何內一郎(1996),工作性質與工作場所次文化對個人飲酒行為之影響-一項探索性前驅研究,高雄醫學院醫學科學雜誌,12(6),339–347頁。
楊婷婷(2011),酒後駕車防制策略之研究-應用層級分析法(未出版之碩士論文),逢甲大學,臺中。
楊士隆(2016),刑事司法與犯罪學研究倫理,收錄於許春金、楊士隆、周愫嫻、鄭瑞隆、沈勝昂……與侯崇文等人所著,刑事司法與犯罪學研究方法,臺北市:五南圖書,17-35頁。new window
廖福村(2007),犯罪預防,臺北市:五南圖書。
鄭夙芬(2012),焦點團體研究法,收錄於瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞等所編社會及行為科學研究法(一)總論與量化研究法。臺北市:臺灣東華書局股份有限公司。new window
蔡德輝、楊士隆(2017),犯罪學,臺北市:五南圖書。new window
蔡中志(2001),國人酒精濃度與代謝率及對行為影響之實驗研究,警光雜誌第538期。
蔡中志、馬士軒(2013),酒精濃度與肇事嚴重度關聯性之探討—以桃園縣為例,102年道路交通安全與執法研討會,553-565頁。
蔡心珮(2011),基層警察酒駕防制政策之探討-以臺中市政府警察局為例(未出版之碩士論文),逢甲大學,臺中。
潘明宏(譯)(1999),社會科學研究方法(原作者:Chava Frankfort-Nachmias and David Nachmias),臺北市:韋伯文化事業出版社。
潘慧玲(2003),社會科學研究典範的流變,教育研究資訊11(1),115-143頁。new window
潘昱萱(2015),酒精、藥物濫用與暴力行為之相關,收錄於楊士隆主編,暴力犯罪-原因、類型與對策,臺北市:五南圖書。new window
歐素汝(譯)(2000),焦點團體:理論與實務(原作者:Stewart & Shamdasani),臺北市:弘智文化事業有限公司。
謝金青(2012),社會科學研究法:論文寫作之理論與實務,新北市:威仕曼文化。
謝志偉、王慧玉(譯)(2010),混合方法研究導論(原作者:Creswell & Plano Clark),台北:心理出版社股份有限公司。
簡苓蕙(2014),女警增加對刑事警察體系改變之研究─以桃園市政府警察局為例(未出版之碩士論文),中央警察大學,桃園。
羅清俊(2010),社會科學研究法:打開天窗說量化,新北市:威仕曼文化。

二、外文部分(依字母順序)
Akers, R. L. & Sellers C. S. (2009) , Criminological Theories, New York: Oxford University Press.
Bouffard, J. A., Esum, M. L. & Collins P. A. (2010), Methodological artifacts in test of rational choice theory, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume: 38, pp. 400-409.new window
Cavaiola, A. (2013). The Challenges of Screening DUI Offenders, Criminology & Public Policy, 12: 173-177.
Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer: pp.1-16.
Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A replay to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies. Crime Prevention Studies, 16: pp.41-96.
Clarke, R. V. & Eck, J. E. (2003), Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers, U.S.: Dept of Justice.
Dugosh, K. L., Festinger, D. S. & Marlowe, D. B. (2013). Moving beyond BAC in DUI: Identifying who is at risk of recidivating. Criminology & Public Policy, 12: pp.181-201.
DeMichele, M. & Payne, B. (2013). If I Had Hammer, I Would Not Use it to Control Drunk Driving: Using Predictive Tool to Respond to Persistent Drunk Driving. Criminology & Public Policy, 12: pp.213-225.
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ( 2013), Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.P496.
Fishbein, D. H.(2000), The science,Treatment, and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors-Application to The Criminal Justice System, New Jersey: Kingston.
Fishbein, D. H.(2001), Biobehavior perspectives in criminology, Canada: Wadsworth.
Fell, J. C. & Voas, R. B. (2013). Deterring DUI Behavior in the First Place: A Bigger Bang for the Buck. Criminology & Public Policy, 12: pp. 203-210.
Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (1990), A General Theory of Crime, California: Stanford University Press.
Grasmick, H. G. & Bursik, R. J.(1990) , Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice: Extending the Deterrence Model, Law & Society Review , Vol. 24, No3, pp.837-862.
Grasmick, H. G. & Green, D. E. (1980), Legal Punishment, Social Disapproval and Internalization As Inhibitors Of Illegal Behavior. Vol. 71, No 3, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.
Lundman, R. J.(1980) , Police Behavior-A Sociological Perspective, New York: Oxford University, pp.163-180.
Loughran, A. T., Paternoster, R., Chalfin, A., and Wilson, T.(2016), Can Rational Choice be Considered a General Theory of crime? Evidence from Individual-Level Panel Data. American Society of Criminology, January 2016. pp. 1-27. Retrieved from http:/www.researchgate.net/ publication/ -289984337
Lapham, S. C., & Todd, M.(2012), Do Deterrence and Social Control Theories Predict Driving after Drinking 15 years after a DWI Conviction? Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 45: 142–151. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.12.005
Morgan, D. L. (1998), Planning focus groups (Focus Groups Kit 2). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Mazerolle, L. & Ransley, T.(2014), The case for third-party policing, in Police Innovation, Edited by David Weisburd, Antony A. Braga, Cambridge Books Online. Book DOI: http//dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489334
Piquero, A. R.(2010), A General Theory of Crime and Public Policy, In Criminology and Public Policy- Putting Theory to Work, Edited by Barlow,H. D. and Decker,S.H, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.

Pratt, T. C.(2008), Rational Choice Theory, Crime Control Policy And Criminological Relevance, Criminology & Public Policy, Washington State University.
Roberg, R. R. & Kuykendall, J.(1990),Police Organization and Management-Behavior, Theory, and Processes, California: Brooks/Cole.pp. 41-51.
Sampson, S. S.(2000), Of Crime & Criminality-The Use of Theory in Everyday Life, California: Pine Forge Press.
Sarason and Sarason(1996), Abnormal psychology: The problem of maladaptive behavior, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Sherman, L. W. (1993), Defiance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency .
Slocum, L. A. (2010),General strain theory and the development of stressors and substance use over time: An empirical examination, Journal of Criminal Justice 38:1100-1112.
Stinson, P. M., Liederbach, J., Brewer, S. L., Todak, N. E. (2013), Drink, Drive, Go to Jail? A Study of Police Officers Arrested for Drunk Driving, Criminology Justice Faculty Publications. Paper 8.ScholarWorks@BGSU. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/crim_just_pub/8
Tarter, R. E. & Vanyukov, M.(1994), Alcoholism—A Developmental Disorder, by the American Psychological Association.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. In “The Science,Treatment,and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors” Edited by Fishbein, D. H.,Civic Research Institute, Inc, Kingston, New Jersey,2000.
Wolfgang, M. & Franco, F.(1967), The subculture of Violence- Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology, London: Routledge.
Weisburd, G. & Yang, S. (2012), The Criminology Of Place, New York: Oxford University Press.
Weisbrud, D., Telep, C. W., Braga, A. A., Groff, E. R., Hinkle, J. C., Lum, C., Morris, N. A., Wyckoff, L. A. & Yang, S. (2012),The Importance of Place in Policing Empirical Evidence and Policy Recommendation,in” Master Criminologists on the Science of Crime Control” ,Volume 2,Chinese Beijing:People’s Press.
Wikström, P. (2012). Does Everything Matter? Addressing the Problem of Causation and Explanation in the Study of Crime. In When Crime Appears, Edited by McGloin,J. M., Sullivan, C.J. & Kennedy, L.W. New York: Routledge.


Wiliszowski, C., Murphy, P., Jones R. & Lacey, J.(1996), Determine Reasons For Repeat Drinking and Driving, Mid-American Research Institute, Inc. of New England Winchester, Massachusetts。 
三、網站資料
中華民國犯罪學學會(2012),中華民國犯罪學學會研究倫理規範。
網址: http://rec.web.nthu.edu.tw/files/15-1679-54072,c7578-1.php 2018年01月14日瀏覽
丁大宇(2015),道路交通事故死亡人數與國際比較分析,內政部警政署警政統計專題分析。
網址: https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/ct?xItem=77625&ctNode=12598&mp=1 2016年07月31日瀏覽
內政部警政署全球資訊網/防制酒駕專區/執法統計(2017)。
網址: https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/np?ctNode=12867&mp=1 2017年10月31日瀏覽
內政部警政署全球資訊網/最新消息(2017/03/08),女力覺醒 給警眷及婦女朋友一個讚。
網址:https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/ct?xItem=83163&ctNode=11435&mp=1 2017年12月15日瀏覽
交通部道路交通安全督導委員會「交通安全你不能不知道系列(五)」
網址:http://military.thu.edu.tw/B-1011109%20.pdf
2015年11月23日瀏覽
陳加忠(2016),t檢定之使用與誤用,譯自Skaik, Y., Park J Med SCI, 2015, 31(6): 1-2。
網址:http://amebse.nchu.edu.tw/new_page_303.htm
2017年12月31日瀏覽
臺灣心理學會(2013),心理學專業人員倫理準則。
網址:http://140.112.62.7/cpa/zh/psyethics/
2018年01月14日瀏覽
CDC(2016),Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Impaired Driving: Get the Facts.
網址 :http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html 2016年07月31日瀏覽


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE