轉型正義之法治課題及應有方向之探討：除了真相還要什麼?以懲罰制度之必要性與可行性為重心

A Study on the Transitional Justice under the Rule of Law and its New Direction: What Shall We Do Besides Truth-seeking? Focus on the Necessity and Feasibility of Retribution

劉正祥(Jheng-Siang Liou)

指導教授 ： 李建良

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.01539

摘要

轉型正義指的是當社會從一段時間的專制或極權政權之統治，轉而進入到和平、民主、法治以及對於個人和集體權利有所尊重時，對於專制或極權政權之統治當時廣泛地或有系統性地人權侵害所遺留之影響所採取的一系列處理途徑。換句話說，當我們面對過去政府許多暴行或不正義的作為，到底要怎樣處理才適當？這就是本論文所欲探討的重點。

首先，本文對於我國轉型正義之落實現況進行分析後認為，我國轉型正義的處理模式，主要僅止於金錢賠償與補償，至於真相揭露的部分，仍然不夠完整且全面，只以受害人為中心，而忽略了加害者之部分。最後，對於加害者的責任追究，也完全付之闕如。簡單的說，我們對受害者知悉有限，但對真相一知半解，對加害者一無所知。而這樣的模式，在本文觀察了目前民主轉型國家的經驗後發現，是相當類似於西班牙的，都是對於舊政權的遺產選擇遺忘，並透過失憶來埋葬過去。

在瞭解了我國以及各國轉型正義主要的處理模式後，本文更進一步論述轉型正義應有之方向。本文認為，處理轉型正義，必須以真相揭露為出發點，因為透過受害者或是相關人物的真相述說，不僅有助於其自我認同，使得屬於自己的個性與不可剝奪的人格得到承認外，還可讓受害者本身所遭受到的創傷獲得治療。再者，讓受害者之外的其他人了解事實的殘酷，有助於建立真實的歷史記憶。至於就社會而言，保存這樣的歷史經歷讓公眾知悉，某程度上，也能夠幫助避免這樣的一個不正義行為會在未來重複發生之機會。就實證的角度來看，連西班牙也開始進行真相回復之工作。因此，揭露、尋求和反思真相，已經是一個不可違逆之潮流。

然而，除了真相揭露之外，更重要的是應包含一定程度的懲罰手段。因為對於受害者而言，獲得真相後，卻因為大赦制度的施行，見到加害者逍遙法外，這樣的結果並不是他們所樂見的，因為他們希望加害者受到懲罰，沒有懲罰制度的存在，有時反而還會激起過往的怨恨。唯有加害者得到合理的處置，受害者才能得到真正的解脫，也才有助於人權保障的目標追求、社會的和解與重建以及國家未來的發展。

最後，既然強調懲罰制度的重要性，則如何讓懲罰制度在法律上具備合法性與適當性，同樣是不可逃避的問題。而本文在分析懲罰制度的可行性後，認為對於前政權加害者實施「刑事制裁」，原則上是不可行的，畢竟前政權的大部分加害者，其行為本身並不具有不法性與有責性，而只有在相當例外的情形下，才有刑事制裁存在之空間。至於「人事清查制度」，則有存在的可能性，而只要妥善設計，並非不可在台灣實施。而本文也基於這樣的理由，嘗試提出了「我國人事清查制度」之可行方向。

當然，本文也期許透過以上對於懲罰制度之分析，能夠作為我國未來在轉型正義議題之處理上，一個重要的參考與省思素材。

關鍵字

轉型正義 ； 懲罰制度 ； 真相揭露 ； 寬恕 ； 刑事制裁 ； 柏林圍牆射殺案 ； 回溯適用 ； 罪惡的平庸性 ； 漢娜鄂蘭 ； 米爾格蘭實驗 ； 淨化法 ； 人事清查制度

並列摘要

Transitional justice refers to a range of approaches that societies undertake to reckon with legacies of widespread or systematic human rights abuse as they move from a period of violent conflict or oppression towards peace, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for individual and collective rights. In other words, how to deal with many atrocities or unjust actions of dictatorship in the past is this article’s key point.

At first, Taiwan’s way of dealing with the past focus on compensation to victims. The truth-seeking was not enough and sweeping, only including the truth of victims.There were no trials to judge those responsible for deaths, torture, and illegall detentions. In short, Taiwan’s way of dealing with the past was similar to Spain’s model. Their ways of dealing with their repressive legacy has been often characterized as a deliberate agreement to ‘forget’ and ‘disremember’ the past. And bury the past through collective amnesia.

After realizing many countries’s ways of dealing with the past, this article also discusses the new direction of transitional justice. This article argues that first step of new direction of transitional justice is truth-seeking. Let the injured or their kindred tell the stories of suffering is very important. On the one hand, their injury and dignity will be recognized, on the other hand, their damages and traumas will be healed. Moreover, let other bystanders understand the cruelty of reality, it is tend to establishes the real historical memory. Socially, to preserve the record of historical experience is to post a public warning sign against the repetition of such injustice in the future. Spain is also recovering its memory. Therefore revealing, seeking and reflexing the truth is an inevitable current.

However, the most important direction of transitional justice is retribution. For victims, truth-seeking is insufficient to meet the myriad psychological needs individuals. The granting of amnesty to those responsible for deaths, torture, and illegall detentions is also generally at odds with the feelings of most survivors of violence. Ideally, these survivors want truth from the perpetrators, but they also want them retributed. Justice through retribution is the preferred way of dealing with survivors among victims. Without retribution, survivors’s often discontentedness will gradually become hatred. Inflicting reasonable retribution on perpetrators is to be contributive to human rights protection, social reconciliation and national future.

Finally, this article focuses on the necessity and feasibility of retribution. Criminal trial, one form of retribution, has no necessity and feasibility in principle. Because most perpetrators’s harmful actions are legal. And they are not responsible for their actions. Only in the wholly exceptional situation, criminal trial has the necessity and feasibility. As for vetting, another form of retribution, it has the necessity and feasibility. It has nothing to do with criminal responsibility. Because of the necessity and feasibility of vetting, this article addresses a recommendation of new direction of vetting.

The new direction of retribution that article addresses maybe become important reference about transitional justice in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

transitional justice ； retribution ； truth-seeking ； forgiveness ； criminal trial ； Mauerschuetzen ； retroactivity ； the Banality of Evil ； Hannah Arendt ； Milgram Experiment ； lustration ； vetting

參考文獻

黃若羚，《轉型正義與法院之功能角色》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2007年。

施育傑，《歐洲人權公約第五條──以歐洲人權法院裁判為借鏡，檢討我國羈押與人身拘束制度》，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2008年7月。

吳乃德，〈書寫民族創傷：二二八事件的歷史記憶〉，《思想8---後解嚴台灣文學》，2008年1月，頁39-70。

陳芳明，〈轉型正義與台灣歷史〉，《思想5---轉型正義與記憶政治》，2007年4月，頁83-94。

江宜樺，〈台灣的轉型正義及其省思〉，《思想5---轉型正義與記憶政治》，2007年4月，頁65-81。