緩刑向來被認為是一種刑罰的節制措施。由於刑罰之執行往往伴隨負面作用，對於沒有必要執行刑罰之人，若能給予緩刑，可讓行為人得以維持其家庭和社會關係，並避免標簽效應等刑罰的弊病。然而，近年來，隨著緩刑規定的修改，法官可在宣告緩刑的同時，要求行為人履行或遵守各種事項，使得緩刑在犯罪控制上的作用，實際上早已超越了節制刑罰的目的，而參雜了道德教化、懲罰、保安處分、滿足被害人等多重性質，並且，在有罪必罰的觀念與嚴罰化的社會氛圍下，此種修法使得緩刑反而成為擴張國家懲罰與控制權力的機制。本論文一方面比較國內外緩刑思潮與制度的發展，一方面觀察我國緩刑規定的演變、實務運作以及刑罰的現況，來分析緩刑目的與實踐之間的差距，從刑事政策的觀點指出緩刑規定與運用上的問題，並提供建議。 The reform of Taiwan’s Criminal law in 2005, has introduced the conditonal suspended sentences as a solution to the oftnoted problem: the extraordinarily high incarceration rate for trivial offences. But it is unlikely that the Taiwanese judiciary will abandon over-night its historic reliance on imprisonment sentences. This paper analysed the practices of conditional suspended sentencing through judgment documents and interviews with judges, also analysed the data of conditonal suspended sentencing and the rate of imprisonment related. In conclusion, the new sentencing option seemed merely widen the net of penal control. It's because the failure of legislation, the values that rely on severe punishment, and related to these values, the sentencing judges-they treat conditional suspended sentences, not as an alternative to imprisonment but rather as a sanction in its own right. This paper also makes some suggestions about how to reform, and discussed the principles and limitations of conditonal suspended sentencing.