在規範責任論下,罪責的核心內涵就是「期待可能性」,然而欠缺期待可能性因標準不明確以及法無明文而無法在實務上成為普遍接受的阻卻罪責事由。本文遂分析目前刑法已明文規定之阻卻或減輕罪責事由,並整理歸納目前有使用到期待可能性此一概念之實務判決,發覺近年來實務討論此一概念似有增加之趨勢,而且也有判決為此一概念提供了相當完整的基礎論述。 然而,因為期待可能性可能包括的範圍無窮無盡,本文從制度的缺乏及瑕疵著手,並重點專注在醫療領域,去探討若是行為人所組的組織、系統抑或是制度其本身具有缺失,導致該組織、系統抑或是制度成為法益侵害的元凶,在這種時候究竟要如何去評價行為人之罪責問題。 在現行法下,本文主張可以透過刑法第57條第8款、援引已經有立法基礎之系統性錯誤概念、或者直接將欠缺期待可能性作為超法規阻卻罪責事由以解決前開問題。但正本清源之道,行為人因為制度缺失而造成法益侵害的情況,仍以立法解決為宜。
Under the normative responsibility theory, the central conception of responsibility(schuld) is Reasonableness (Zumutbarkeit), because of its uncertainty and without legislation, lack of reasonableness is not certified as a common reason to mitigative responsibility in practice. After analyzing criminal law and several judgements, we found that there are more and more judges take this conception in their judgements, it also provides a solid foundation for this conception. The reason why people lack Reasonableness is countless, this thesis focusses on the defective institution, especially in the medical area. Discussing that if the reason of violation of rights comes from the defective institution, how to determine the responsibility of defendant. On current law, we can through criminal article, 57, Subparagraph 8,cite the conception of Systematic error, or take lack of reasonableness as a reason to mitigative responsibility. But the direct way to solve this problem is to promote legislation.