摘要
臺灣自引入近代刑事訴訟制度後，百年以來刑事審判工作均交由職業法官來擔負，確實對臺灣的法治有所貢獻，然而純粹的職業法官制存在二大問題：（一）容易出現國民對司法的信賴問題；（二）容易造成事人主義與公平審理理念的形式化。因此，臺灣未來究應繼續維持職業法官制，或是導入陪審制、參審制等國民參與刑事審判之制度，即成為一亟待解決的問題。 本文由以下三個面向切入：（一）制度之沿革與現狀；（二）國民性與社會環境；（三）國民與國家之負擔，並以臺灣為主體進行研究，期能瞭解臺灣究竟適合何種刑事審判制度。在方法上，本文主要參考中文及日文文獻，以文獻分析法進行研究，並著重於：（一）法制史研究。用以瞭解職業法官制、陪審制與參審制之歷史上成因；（二）比較法研究。本文參考八大工業國及中國大陸之制度，以瞭解各國刑事審判制度之現狀，並對其制度上之問題點提出說明。（三）法律的經濟分析。本文建構了「最適刑事審判制度」之經濟模型，藉著人民對「民主」與「法律專業」間之偏好不同，用以統整性地說明國家應如何選擇刑事審判制度，始能獲得最高之正義滿足感。此外，在導入陪審制、參審制可能導致的違憲問題上，本文除彙整臺、日學者們的意見外，並依法學方法論之綜合解釋，推論出合憲之結論。 由國際趨勢來看，包括八大工業國及中國大陸在刑事審判均已採行陪審制或參審制。然而臺灣是否適用，應首重瞭解臺灣之真貌，即本文於經濟模型中所指出：「人民的主觀偏好」才是關鍵。因此，本文由司法預算、環璄變化、國民性格等三方面來解讀臺灣之特徵，逐一論述此些特徵適合何種刑事審判制度，並檢討了導入陪審制或參審制時，臺灣現行法制應有哪些配套制度。本文最後得出之結論為：臺灣可參考法國式參審與日本裁判員制度，導入「非任期制之平民參審制」，但應同時注意到此種刑事審判制度須要相當之司法預算支持，且須同時配套修正刑事訴訟法。
並列摘要
The fact that career judges have been in charge of criminal trial affairs ever since criminal procedure system of modern times was introduced into Taiwan nearly a hundred years ago has undoubtedly made contribution to the country’s rule of law. However, two problems are found in pure judge system: (1) it easily weakens people’s trust in judiciary, and (2) it easily leads to the adversary system and turns the ideal of fair trial into a dead letter. Thus, whether Taiwan should maintain its judge system or introduce criminal procedures that welcome participation of nationals like the jury system and the joint judge-jury system is an urgent problem. Viewing Taiwan as the main body, this thesis develops in three aspects: (1) the evolution and current conditions of legal systems; (2) national characters and social environment; (3) burdens of nationals and the country, in order to find out which type of criminal procedure can well serve Taiwan. The research was conducted via documentary analysis, referring to literature and documents in Chinese and Japanese, and has three focuses: (1) study of legal history, to learn better about causes of the judge system, the jury system, and the joint judge-jury system in the history; (2) comparative law research, taking the references of G8 countries and China, to know current situations of each country’s criminal trial systems and illustrate their problems; (3) economic analysis of law, with the economic model of “optimal criminal procedure” constructed in this thesis to illustrate how a country can achieve maximum satisfaction with justice through choosing its criminal procedure according to peoples’ different favors for “democracy” and “legal specialty.” On constitutional violations that may possibly stem from introducing the jury system and the joint judge-jury system, this thesis integrates opinions and views of both Taiwanese and Japanese scholars and has a constitutional conclusion on the basis of comprehensive interpretation of legal methodology. The international trend shows that G8 countries and China have all adopted the jury system or the joint judge-jury system for criminal procedure. But whether the two systems suit Taiwan can only be defined through really knowing the country. This agrees with what the thesis points out in the economic model that “people’s subjective preferences” are crucial factors. For this reason, this thesis interprets Taiwan’s special features through aspects of judicial budget, environmental changes, and national characters to discuss which criminal procedure system should fit different features and to examine what complementary measures Taiwan should have for current legal system when introducing the jury or joint judge-jury system. The conclusion is Taiwan can take the references of French joint judge-jury system and Japanese saiban-in system for introducing “non-term common people joint judge-jury system,” and at the same time has to pay attention to the fact that this type of criminal procedure system requires support of considerable judicial budget and complementary amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law.