臺灣地區殺人案件量刑因素之研究

A Study of Criminal Sentencingon Homicide Cases in Taiwan

余麗貞(Li-Chen Yu)

指導教授 ： 洪永泰

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.10268

摘要

長久以來，外界對於法官的量刑輕重一直都有質疑，本研究嘗試打開法官量刑的黑盒子，以期發現法官量刑是否歧異、及造成此種歧異的原因。本研究蒐集92年到97年全國一審法院的殺人案件，總計1,591筆判決，作為研究對象；變數選擇方面將可能影響法官量刑因素分成四類，包括被告個人因素、犯罪行為因素、被害人因素及法官因素，研究方法採用敘述性統計，變異數分析，及多元類別分析（Multiple Classification Analysis，MCA）。
研究結果歸納如下：1.「法定加重其刑規定」完全沒有影響：累犯與被害人為未成年人等「應」加重刑罰的規定，並沒有適當的顯現在刑度上。2. 非法定量刑因素僅在少數因素才對法官量刑有所影響，但歧異並不大：本研究列出12個非法定量刑因素，僅有被告年齡、性別、任職法院對量刑有影響，但影響並不特別顯著，解釋力也不強。3. 法定量刑因素（刑法第五十七條）有相當影響，例如犯罪動機、犯罪手法、犯罪人案、被害人態度等，對法官量刑有一定程度的影響力。4. 影響最大者為法定減輕其刑的相關規定，原因可能是長久以來法官每遇有減輕其刑事由，總是大手筆一揮的先砍二分之一，再略加個數月，並未真正考慮減輕事由的情節輕重，審慎予以比例減輕所致。此結論的判定係數（R Squared）高達0.496，在社會科學的研究中，具有相當高的解釋力。
本研究根據上述結論，分別提出近程、中程及遠程目標之建議：1. 近程目標：針對減輕及加重其刑相關規定，研議依不同情節而有不同的減輕或加重標準。2. 中程目標：擬具殺人罪之量刑基準。3. 遠程目標：設立量刑專責單位，從事資料彙集及統計實證研究。

關鍵字

殺人 ； 量刑 ； 變異數分析 ； 多元類別分析 ； MCA

並列摘要

For long, court judges’ discretion in sentencing has always been questioned. This study thus attempted to open the black box of judges’ sentencing to examine if any inconsistency exists in their sentencing standards and causes of the inconsistency. The research sample consisted of a total of 1,591 verdicts for homicide cases made by district courts around the nation during 2003~2008. Based on factors affecting judges’ sentencing, four variables including defendant’s individual factor, criminal behavior factor, victim factor, and judge factor were selected and used for analysis. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variances (ANOVA), and multiple classification analysis (MCA).
The main conclusions are as follows: (1) “Legal aggravation of punishment” is completely not influential: The stipulation about imposing aggravate punishment on repeated offenders of crime or offenders in cases where victims are minors has not been adequately reflected on judges’ sentencing; (2) Only a few non-legally prescribed sentencing factors affect judges’ sentencing decisions but not to a significant extent: This study listed 12 non-legally prescribed sentencing factors. Among them, only defendant’s age, gender, and the court affect judges’ sentencing decisions but not to a significant extent. Their explanatory power was also not high; (3) The legally prescribed sentencing factors (Article 57 of Criminal Code), such as criminal motivation, criminal method, criminal profile, and victim’s attitude, considerably influence judges’ sentencing decisions; (4) The most influential factor is “legal alleviation of punishment”. Many judges are used to slashing the original punishment by half first if legal alleviation of punishment is applicable to the defendant and then roughly adding a few months to the reduced punishment, without prudent consideration of the severity of the crime and a suitable proportion of punishment to be reduced. The coefficient of determination for this conclusion (R squared) reached 0.496. In social science, this value suggests high explanatory power.
Based on the above conclusions, this study proposed short, mid, and long-term goals for improvement of judges’ sentencing: (1) Short-term goal: For stipulations about aggravation and alleviation of punishment, different standards should be set up for different criminal conditions; (2) Mid-term goal: A sentencing standard for homicide should be set up; (3) Long-term goal: A special institution responsible for collecting data and empirical research of sentencing should be established.

並列關鍵字

Homicide ； Sentencing ； ANOVA ； Multiple Classification Analysis ； MCA

參考文獻

王兆鵬，2004，〈民間司法改革基金會司法統計實證研究--揭開法官量刑心證的黑盒子〉，《司法改革雜誌》，49：15-24。

Akers, R. L. 1997. Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (2nded.). Los Angeles: Roxbuiy.

Daly, K. 1987.”Discrimination in the criminal courts: Family, gender, and the problem of equal treatment.” Social Forces 66:152-175.

Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P .1990. ”Effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcomes.” Criminology 28: 451-474.

Heise, D. R. 1979.” Understanding events: Affect and the construction of social action. “ New York: Cambridge University Press.