本文係針對性侵害犯罪加害人處遇之現況進行統整，並提出實際執行所面臨的衝突和矛盾；希冀在檢視過程之後，能更釐清處遇執行的問題，同時對於處遇的未來提出展望。 研究顯示，性侵害犯罪加害人再犯率雖不是所有犯罪中最高，但對婦幼之傷害與威脅極大，且有些類型再犯率極高。政府爲了降低性侵害犯罪加害人再犯的危險性，於2005年分別針對刑法與性侵害犯罪防治法在性侵害犯罪加害人的處遇上進行修正。刑法的變革是將原先於刑前接受強制治療的規定，修正爲刑期屆滿前經鑑定評估有顯著再犯危險者應令入相當處所接受強制治療，也就是所謂的刑後強制治療，重點就在於停止治療期間必須視再犯風險有顯著降低爲止。而性侵害犯罪防治法更新增許多規定，包括性侵害犯罪加害人在社區中接受身心治療或輔導教育後，經評估自我控制再犯無效，也可能需接受強制治療；觀護人對受保護管束的加害人可執行的處遇增加爲密集訪視、測謊、宵禁、限制住居、輔以科技設備（電子腳鐐）監督等方式；性侵害犯罪加害人出獄後需定期向警察機關辦理登記、報到，期間爲七年。這些處遇設計不論是基於一般預防還是特別預防的概念，目的都是希望能建立起社會大眾對於政府在抗制性侵害犯罪的信心以及從特別嚇阻的觀點使性侵害犯罪加害人學習自我控制、避免再犯。然而，立法設計出一個完整且有系統的處遇模式，在實際執行3年後，存在著矛盾和衝突之處。包括如何克服科技設備監督的時間死角、刑後強制治療如何進行、社會大眾如何接受性侵害犯罪加害人走入社區接受治療、加害人復歸社區後的支持網路如何建立等等的問題。 藉由本文，除了重新省思和定位性侵害犯罪加害人的處遇意義，也期冀本文所提出的檢討能夠作爲未來處遇修正的參考。

This study provides an overview of the current situation of treatment for sex offenders in Taiwan, including a number of conflicts and contradictions which have arisen in the course of implementation. The purpose of this research is to provide insights into the relevant issues which can be used to chart the future course of this phenomenon. Research has shown that sex offenders have a very high rate of recidivism. In order to deal with this issue, in 2005 revisions regarding the punishment of sex offenders were separately made to the penal code and the Sexual Assault Prevention Act. The revisions to the penal code stipulate that before any punishment is carried out, a convicted sex offender must undergo compulsory therapy. The revisions also stipulate that before the expiration of the offender's sentence, an evaluation must be made, and if it is found that there is a clear risk of recidivism, then upon being released from prison the offender must be placed in a treatment facility and undergo further compulsory therapy. The upshot of this mandatory therapy is that the treatment is discontinued only after it is determined that there has been a clear deduction in the risk of recidivism. The new regulations added to the Sexual Assault Prevention Act stipulate that after being released and undergoing physical and psychological therapy and counseling, if the offender is evaluated as not having developed sufficient self-control, then he or she can be ordered to undergo further mandatory treatment. Moreover, if deemed necessary, an offender under preventive control can be subjected to increased supervision, including frequent appointments with, or visits from, the parole officer; lie detector tests; curfew; restrictions on place of residence; and the use of electronic monitoring equipment. Finally, after being released from prison, the offender must register with the police within a certain period of time and check in at regular intervals for a period of seven years. All of these preventive measures-both general deterrence and specific deterrence-aim to establish public confidence in the government's efforts to effectively deal with sex crimes, as well as reduce recidivism by using a strong-arm approach to compel sex offenders learn self-control. Despite the comprehensive and systematic quality of this new legislation, after three years of implementation a number of conflicts and contradictions have begun to appear. A number of these are analyzed in this study, including how to deal with the coverage gaps of electronic surveillance; how to implement post-incarceration community treatment; public opinion about released sex offenders receiving therapy while living in the community; and how to help offenders establish a support network once they are released from prison. By providing a comprehensive reevaluation of the treatment of sex offenders, it is expected that this study will serve as a valuable reference for any future revisions which may be made to the relevant laws.