遊民自由權利之保障 —以遊蕩及乞討行為之規制為中心

Protecting Homeless People’s Freedom -- An Analysis of Their Right to Access Public Spaces and Right to Panhandle

方耀德(Yao-Te Fang)

指導教授 ： 雷文玫

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/CYCU.2009.00899

摘要

摘要
遊民是自古以來即存在於各文化的社會現象，儘管隨著經濟的發展，在多數人均日漸富裕的今日，仍有為數不少的遊民依然生活在社會的各個角落。要根本地保障遊民的權益，需要結合失業救濟、社會救助、甚至精神醫療等等，但遊民對於這些支持的需求，仍然會因人而異，而且遊民對於這些社會福利的需求未必與其他人有何不同。因此，本文選擇以遊蕩及乞討行為規制之為焦點層面加以探討，希望凸顯遊民相對於其他人的弱勢地位與特殊性。
本文第二章首先將從遊民之定義、社會脈絡及成因加以釐清，本章除將介紹在我國及美國文化下，遊民受到歧視之情形加以說明外。並將對於遊民之主要成因加以探討，並將遊民之成因歸結於社會經濟結構之層面。
不過，探討保障遊民遊蕩與乞討的自由，必然會引發遊蕩與乞討是否值得保障，本文第三章則由不同的政治哲學脈絡中，探討社會究竟應如何看待遊民的乞討與遊蕩行為，其中將分別就效益主義、自由主義、馬克思主義及社群主義之概念加以介紹。最後在探討各理論之優劣後，本文主張應以自由主義作為形塑開放多元社會之價值基礎。
本文第四章則就現行規制遊蕩行為之法令加以探討，並以我國社會秩序維護法第74條第1項第1款及第2款為探討之重心，最後則認定該條項第1款之規定，因其構成要件過空泛，恐有違憲之疑義。
本文第五章則就乞討行為之規制加以探討，依美國法之見解，乞討應屬言論自由保障之範疇，但於我國法之脈絡下，其亦屬於工作權保障之一環，性質上應屬於基本權之競合。其次則就我國社會秩序維護法第82條第1項第1款之規定進行違憲審查，並主張該條對於乞討行為之限制強度，實質上已形同禁止乞討，應可認定其已違憲。
本文第六章則由平等原則加以探討遊民是否有受憲法特別保障之必要。首先，本文就羅爾斯的正義理論加以介紹，就平等原則在其政治哲學之意義予以說明。其次則就美國釋憲實務發展出的可疑分類概念介紹，並肯認其在我國釋憲機關實務運用之可能性。最後，本文則依憲法社會國原則，主張因公共用物其具有開放性，及使用上之自由性之特徵，認為應以之作為實踐社會國原則之主要場所，其餘公共空間則依其目的性之強弱不同，僅具有備位之性質。
最後，本文則就社會福利制度之實施與人權保障間之關聯加以說明，並認為社會救助法之實施，不可作為對人民基本權利之加以限制之正當化理由。另外本文並對日後是否可能實施乞討執照之制度加以討論，並認定該制度於我國日後應不具備其可行性。

關鍵字

可疑分類 ； 平等權 ； 乞討 ； 遊民 ； 遊蕩

並列摘要

Abstract
Homelessness is a social phenomenon that has existed in different cultures for thousands of years. Nonetheless, even in a well-developed society, there are still some people who are homeless. Most of them can not afford a house and have no choices but to live in public spaces and live on panhandling.
Although a more thorough solution to help homeless people must address issues such as unemployment, public assistance, or even mental health services, however, the necessity of these depends on the actual case of each homeless people, and may not differ from those offered to other people who are needy. Hence, to highlight the unique vulnerability of homeless people, this thesis focuses on protection of their rights to access public spaces and to panhandle.
In chapter 2, this thesis explores the sociology of homelessness under the backdrop of eastern and western culture. It also introduces the elements that make people homeless, such as unemployment, lack of affordable housing, deinstitutionalization, stress in the family, and insufficiency of social welfare. This thesis then introduces the regulation toward homeless in Taiwan during the Chin Dynasty, Japanese governance and the Republic of China.
Since wandering and panhandling is usually seen as undesirable behaviors, Chapter 3 looks into these behavior from political theories such as Utilitarianism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Communitarianism, and then analyzes the pros and cons of the theories. In the end of this chapter it argues that to ensure every member of the society the opportunities to explore and pursue his own interests, a liberal and tolerant society is indispensable.
In chapter 4, this thesis examines the provision of Article 74, Paragraph 1, Section 1, of Social Order Maintenance Act and argues that it is inconsistent with the principle of legal clarity and shall be annulled.
In chapter 5, it will argue the provision of Article 82, Paragraph 1, Section 1, of Social Order Maintenance Act violates constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and the right of employment as stipulated in Article 11 and 15 and the doctrine of proportionality as stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution, and shall be annulled.
In chapter 6, it also discusses if homeless people deserve a stricter standard of scrutiny in judicial review. Considering the fact that homeless people are a minor group that has been historically stigmatized, insulated and disadvantaged politically, this thesis argues that homeless people can be categorized to ‘‘suspect class’’. Created by U.S. Supreme Court, suspect classification protects disadvantaged minorities against the powerful majority, which may pass laws more favorable to itself. Once homeless people are recognized as a suspect class, this thesis urges the court to use the strict scrutiny standard to examine the constitutionality of the regulation targeting the homeless. To survive strict scrutiny, the state actor must prove a compelling state interest, and that the law is narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling state interest.
In chapter 7, it discusses the relevance between social assistance and the protection of human right and argues that they do not contravene with each other. In the end it argues that there is no feasibility to issue panhandling license in the future.

並列關鍵字

suspect class ； panhandle ； access to public spaces ； homeless

參考文獻

8. 陳正根，從警察與秩序法之觀點探討遊民之問題，東吳法律學報，第十九卷第四期，頁153-188(2008)。

9. 許慶雄，現代人權體系中平等原則之研究(上)，國立中正大學法學集刊，第六期，頁105-201(2002)。

11. 黃越欽，憲法中工作權之意義暨其演進，法令月刊，第五十一卷第十期，頁34-55(2000)。

1. 林子儀，言論自由的理論基礎，言論自由與新聞自由，頁1-59，元照出版公司(1999)。

2. 李建良，經濟管制的平等思維—兼評大法官有關職業暨營業自由之憲法解釋，政大法學評論，第102期，頁144-149(2008)。