透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.145.151.141
  • 學位論文

論刑事程序中DNA之採樣、分析及留存

DNA Sampling, Profiling and Storing in Criminal Procedure

指導教授 : 林鈺雄
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


有效追訴犯罪是國家的重要任務,透過DNA鑑定技術在刑事程序上的運用,國家機關能夠迅速發現犯罪嫌疑人,大幅提高犯罪追訴及審判的效率。另一方面,刑事程序中的許多公權力行為,在本質上屬於基本權干預,必須符合法律保留原則及比例原則。透過歐洲人權法院判決及德國法的研究,本文認為DNA的採樣、分析及留存三種行為,分別構成一次基本權干預,亦即,個別行為都必須由法律明確授權始得為之。以此標準檢視我國刑事訴訟法及去氧核醣核酸採樣條例,可以發現我國法在授權規範上有所不足,因此目前實務在進行DNA的採樣、分析及建檔工作時,不是有違反法律保留原則的疑慮,就是手段違反比例原則。 職此,本文認為我國現行刑事訴訟法及去氧核醣核酸採樣條例有修法之必要。首先,DNA之採樣、分析及留存屬於重大基本權干預,應採取法官保留原則,由中立、客觀之法官決定是否符合法定要件,不應如現行法般允許由檢察官職權發動。再者,鑑於DNA承載個人所有基因資訊,為了避免侵害人格核心,必須嚴格限制DNA分析之目的,並明確要求國家銷毀DNA樣本。最後,為了追訴將來可能發生的犯罪,國家可能進一步留存DNA檔案並建立資料庫,這涉及對於被告將來再犯的預測,以及資料如何使用、保護以及何時銷毀的問題。對此,本文認為均應從比例原則的角度出發,留存個人DNA資訊必須是國家追求正當目的所必要之手段,且所追求之利益必須大於所造成之侵害。國家僅得在追求正當目的所必要之範圍內使用,一旦無必要,必須立即銷毀已取得之DNA資料。

並列摘要


During the past years, the DNA identification technologies have played an outstanding role in criminal investigation, helping to exonerate the wrongly accused, as well as convicting the actual criminal actor. However, the advantage of this new technology has also jeopardized certain human rights and civil liberties in a more intrusive way than ever, which, in this essay, could be subdivided into three categories: sampling, profiling and retention. Each of these constitutes interference with the fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution and respectively requires a legal basis which could also restrain the authority from disproportionate intrusion on individual rights. In this regard, this essay demonstrates that both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the DNA Sampling Act not only fail to provide an adequate ground, but also flunk in the guarantee of proportionate interference. Consequently, this essay suggests that an amendment be enacted. First, in view of the intrusion on constitutional rights by DNA techniques, it is the neutral and detached judicial officers, namely judges rather than prosecutors should be authorized to the determination of sampling, profiling and retention of DNA. Second, since DNA samples carry all the genetic information, which is highly private and sensitive, the use of samples should be restricted to what is necessary and proportionate to identify the criminal actor, and should be destroyed when no more required. Last but not least, when it comes to DNA database, indiscriminate and infinite retention of DNA profiles is deemed to be unconstitutional, so this essay also, via research of German law, sets forth the criteria of inclusion and deletion of DNA profiles in the databases, as well as the regulation of data protection, which attempts to strike the balance between the benefit of DNA technologes and human rights.

參考文獻


.林俊益,《刑事訴訟法》,新學林出版,2010年。
.林鈺雄,《刑事訴訟法》,自版,元照總經銷,2010年。
.李志峰,〈基因資訊於人身保險核保使用的妥當性〉,《政大法學評論》,第116期,2010年8月,頁173以下。
.林鈺雄,〈從基本權體系論身體檢查處分〉,《台大法學論叢》,第33卷第3期,2004年5月,頁149以下。
.林鈺雄,〈論通訊之監察-評析歐洲人權法院相關裁判之發展與影響〉,《東吳法律學報》,第19卷第4期,2008年8月,109以下。

被引用紀錄


胡宸儒(2015)。科學證據錯誤與冤罪之形成關係-以陳龍綺案為中心〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00508
李子寧(2012)。論親子關係訴訟血緣鑑定協力及其強制〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.10500
郭進昌(2015)。從基本權保障之角度檢視我國DNA採樣之法規範-以刑事程序中之強制採樣為核心〔碩士論文,國立清華大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0016-0312201510292251

延伸閱讀