談死刑案件中之教化可能性

犯罪行為人情節重大者，依我國刑法之規定，得判處死刑。這種剝奪犯罪行為人的生命刑罰，是否侵犯憲法所保障的基本權即有所疑問。因為依我國憲法第15條：「人民之生存權、工作權及財產權，應予保障。」條文中並未提到「生命權」，那麼能否從「生存權」的角度出發衍生出「生命權」，這是一個解釋的選項之一。但如果認為，憲法所規定的生存權不包括生命權，則應該思考生命權是否與人性尊嚴是同位階，而肯定它是一個憲法所保障的基本權。在我國大法官解釋中，肯定判處死刑的合憲性，其理由不外乎生命權雖然是憲法所保障的基本權利，但是根據憲法第23條的比例原則得限制之。這種說法雖然符合基本卷只能限制不能剝奪的理論，然而判處死刑等同是對於基本權的剝奪，因此大法官雖然沒有宣告死刑違憲，但死刑的合憲性仍然遭受質疑。台灣目前的多數民意，以反對廢除死刑為主流意見，既然死刑的規定目前必須存在，則在憲法保障基本生命權的前提下，要判處剝奪生命刑，必須嚴格而審慎為之，也就是非在萬不得已的情況下絕不判處死刑，方能符合憲法所要求的比例原則。目前法院對於重大兇殺案，儘量以不判處死刑為原則，其中最重要的考量因素之一，就是所謂的「教化可能性」。亦即，只要被告是患有精神疾病，或非無可救藥，就有改過遷善的可能，有一天有回歸社會的可能性。甚至，在支持廢死論者的觀點，沒有教化不可能的被告。因此，在近幾年重大矚目的刑案判決中，大概只有在2014年的捷運隨機殺人案，最高法認為法官不應以「有教化之可能」為主要之依據，作為不判死刑之理由，因而判處被告死刑。其餘的類似案例，大多認為犯罪行為人是有教化可能性的，並非罪大惡極，於是在判處死刑前，考量犯罪行為人是否仍有「教化可能性」，遂成為法官無法迴避的義務。本文建議，在目前多數民意反對廢除死刑的前提下，我國未來如要以「教化可能性」的功能以取代廢除死刑，前提是我們的矯正機構也要有相當的配套措施，像德國的矯正體系就有相當多的社會和心理的專業人才。亦即，我們必須要投入足夠的預算，配置這些人員才足以來矯正此等犯罪行為人的偏差。否則，總是以「教化可能性」為由拒絕判處死刑，只是徒然增加人民對司法判決的不信任感而已。

關鍵字

人性尊嚴；生命權；生存權；死刑；教化可能性

並列摘要

The perpetrator of the crime may be sentenced to death in accordance with the provisions of criminal law in Taiwan. Whether this deprivation of the life of the perpetrator of the crime violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution is questionable. Because according to Article 15 of the Constitution,＂ The right of existence, the right of work, and the right of property shall be guaranteed.＂ The article does not mention the＂right to life＂, so can it be derived from the perspective of the＂right to existence＂? Right to life＂, which is one of the options for interpretation. However, if it is believed that the right to life stipulated in the Constitution does not include the right to life, we should consider whether the right to life is on the same level as human dignity, and affirm that it is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. In the interpretation of our chief justice, the constitutionality of the death penalty is affirmed on no other than that although the right to life is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, it can be limited according to the principle of proportionality in article 23 of the Constitution. Although this statement is in line with the theory that the basic volume can only limit and cannot be deprived, the imposition of the death penalty is equivalent to the deprivation of fundamental rights, so although the justices have not declared the death penalty unconstitutional, the constitutionality of the death penalty is still questioned. Since the provisions on the death penalty must currently exist, under the premise that the Constitution guarantees the basic right to life, the punishment of deprivation of life must be strictly and prudently imposed, that is, the death penalty must not be imposed unless it is a last resort, so as to meet the principle of proportionality required by the Constitution. At present, for major homicide cases, the court tries not to impose the death penalty as a principle, and one of the most important factors to consider is the so-called ＂possibility of rehabilitation ＂. That is to say, as long as the defendant is mentally ill, or is not hopelessly ill, there is a ＂possibility of rehabilitation＂, and one day there is a possibility of returning to society. Even, in support of the abolitionist view, there is no indoctrination of the impossible defendant. Therefore, among the high-profile criminal verdicts in recent years, presumably only in the 2014 MRT random homicide case, the SPC held that judges should not rely on the ＂possibility of rehabilitation ＂ as the main basis for not judging . The grounds for the death penalty and therefore the death penalty imposed on the accused. In the remaining similar cases, most of them believe that the perpetrator has the possibility of indoctrination, not the most heinous crime, so before sentencing the death penalty, consider whether the perpetrator still has the ＂possibility of rehabilitation ＂.It became an unavoidable duty for judges. This article suggests that under the premise that the majority of public opinion is currently opposed to the abolition of the death penalty, if our country replaces the abolition of the death penalty with the function of＂possibility of rehabilitation ＂ in the future, the premise is that our correctional institutions must also have considerable supporting measures For example, the German correction system has a considerable number of social and psychological professionals. That is to say, we must invest enough budgets to allocate these personnel enough to correct the bias of such criminals. Otherwise, the refusal to impose the death penalty on the grounds of possibility of rehabilitation ＂ only increases the people's distrust of judicial decisions.

並列關鍵字

Human Dignity ； Right to Existence ； Right to Life ； Death Penalty ； Possibility of Rehabilitation

主題瀏覽