乘機性交猥褻罪的規範適用問題 ──以精神障礙者之性自主權利為中心

The Problematic Application of Article 225 of the Criminal Code - a view of the right to sex of the mentally-disabled

廖宜寧(I-Ning Liao)

指導教授 ： 黃榮堅

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.00873

摘要

摘要
刑法第二百二十五條的乘機性交猥褻罪，一直以來在學說上少有專文論及，自二○○五年妨害性自主罪章修正後，多半將本條之意義定位在確認個人性自主決定權之強化，將規範保護自性自主決定權之當然侵害擴及於性自主決定權之「擬制侵害」，強調「無同意即不合法」，藉以貫徹對個人關於性活動之自我意識的絕對保障。在本罪之被害人對系爭性行為表示同意的情況下，必須先判斷其同意是否有效，亦即必須就被害人之同意能力進行審查，若系爭被害人因精神障礙或心智缺陷──主要即指智能障礙者，致其欠缺與一般人相同之性認知，則法院即認定其同意為無效，乃屬於本罪構成要件中所稱「不知抗拒」狀態，倘行為人明知而利用被害人此一狀態與其發生性接觸行為者，即構成乘機性交或猥褻罪。
本論文乃試圖在分析比較法及規範構成要件之後，對以上觀點進行檢討。首先自妨害性自主罪章之整體規範目的出發，將本罪章之共同保護法益定位為一種較個人自由更為廣泛、以個人針對自身性生活安排所建構之理想性圖像為內容的性自主決定權利，此一權利由於與個人的自我意識、自我認同以及個人主體性緊密相連而受到特別的關注。
其次，以美國學者Martha C. Nussbaum以及法國社會學大家Michel Foucault對於性羞恥以及性主體意識生成的論述為基點，指出性自主與主體實踐概念的相對性，而主張性自主之實踐不應侷限於遵循特定的理想性圖像模式，而應保有更多可能取徑，由個體依其本有之自我進行選擇，即使此一選擇結果不一定完美無缺。國家透過規範所應確保者，並非特定選擇之內容，而應係此一選擇的過程以及選擇可能性，並兼顧作為刑罰對象之行為人的權利。
最後，就如何在乘機性交猥褻罪適用過程中，實踐智能障礙者的性自主權利此一主題進行探討，本文主張應全面肯定智能障礙者的性自主同意能力，無論其係基於生理上需求、其他動機而同意，均無損其同意效力；就無法證實其性圖像存在之情形，亦應以侵害標的之欠缺而否定本罪之成立。據此，本罪之適用應集中至因一時性抗拒知能欠缺而致性圖像遭受破壞的情形，方符個人性自主法益保護之意旨。

關鍵字

性自主 ； 乘機 ； 心智缺陷 ； 智能障礙 ； 不知抗拒 ； 同意能力 ； 個人性圖像 ； 主體意識

並列摘要

Abstract
The interpretation of Art. 225 of the criminal code has not received due attention from academic studies. Since after the last modification of the Criminal Code in 2005, Art. 225 has generally been considered as meant to intensify the protection of individual sexual autonomous right as it extended the protection of sexual autonomy from “proper inroads of sexual right” to “the legal fictional inroads of sexual right”, and emphasized “sexual contact is illegal with the absence of the victim’s consent”, protecting absolutely the individual’s sexual self-consciousness. Accordingly in the case when a victim consents to the sexual behavior, the court should decide first that if the victim has the ability to consent. If the victim is found to have no sexual cognitive ability equal to ordinary people due to mental disorder or intellectual disabilities, their consent on sex would be regarded as invalid, and the sexual contact defined as a crime under the law.
This Article attempts to analyses Art. 225 and review this rationale. It focuses first on the purpose of the law, defining it as to protect individual sexual image and sexual autonomy, which is broader than the protection of individual sexual “liberty”. Protection of such as defined in this Article has been considered extremely important because it bears strong ties to individual subjectivity and human dignity.
Second, this Article, in the light of the similar critique from Martha C. Nussbaum and Michal Foucault, points out the relativity of sexual autonomous right and the practice of subjectivity, and stands for the point of view that each person should be allowed to realize their ideal sexual image in their own ways. What the state should do is to provide more possibilities of choice, not to defend for a content-specific sexual image. In addition, liberty of the person who would probably face criminal prosecution should also be considered.
Finally, this Article discusses solutions under the law to realize the sexual right of the mentally disabled. It proposes that the ability to consent on sexual behavior of the mentally disabled should be comprehensively admitted by law. Their consents are valid under the law regardless of why they said “yes”. Even when a victim showed neither consent nor refusal to the sexual contact, as long as there is no evidence to prove their sexual images derogated by the sexual conduct, the person who had committed sex with him/her ought not to be convicted. Eventually the application of Art. 225 should be confined only to those cases in which the victims had temporarily lost their consciousness or the ability to resist.

並列關鍵字

sexual autonomy ； taking advantage of ； mental retardation ； intellectual defect ； disability of refusal ； ability to consent ； individual sexual image ； subjective consciousness

參考文獻

林燕卿，〈影響家長及教師對智能障礙者執行性教育的因素〉，特殊教育季刊，第117期，2010年12月。

林純真，〈智能障礙者性議題之百年進展〉，《特殊教育季刊》，117期，2010年12月。

林蕙芬，〈智能障礙學生問題行為之調查研究〉，《特殊教育與復健學報》，23期，2010年。

李茂生，〈論性道德的刑法規制〉，台灣法學會2002年年度法學會議論文，2002年。

李聖傑，〈從性自主權思考刑法的性行為〉，《中原財經法學》，第10期，2003年6月。