司法官對法律文獻資源之資訊行為研究

The study of judges and prosecutors’ information behavior of law information resources

林嘉敏(Jia-Miin Lin)

指導教授 ： 卜小蝶博士

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/社會教育學系在職進修碩士班/碩士(2005年)

摘要

現實生活中，法律和我們生活息息相關，它是一般人的行為的規範，也是最低的道德標準。在現今的法治社會係由國家所建立司法訴訟制度來確保當事人之權利義務，申張社會公義，司法官正是司法訴訟制度的執行者。但台灣司法系統未受信賴，有其長遠又複雜之歷史及社會因素，其中原因之一為司法人員的專業能力備受批評。良好的法學素養與專業技能及經驗對於司法官而言相當重要，其可避免因不同的訓練過程、不同的社會、經驗背景及其他外在因素影響，形成個人私見。因此本研究乃以司法官為研究對象，藉以了解其從事職務相關活動時，對法律文獻資源的需求、尋求與使用行為。
本研究採取問卷調查法、半結構性訪談、參與式觀察法與文件分析法進行研究，其中以問卷調查法為主，觀察法、訪談法、文件分析法為輔，以為補充問卷調查資料之不足，最後將蒐集而得的實證資料加以分析。研究結果顯示，司法官所從事的司法審判與刑事偵查職務是法律資訊支援之重心，且實務操作面的法律問題為其最常遭遇之問題類型，因此判解函釋等實務見解的司法記錄資訊為其最常使用的資訊類型，並透過多元化的資訊尋求管道來解決其所遇之法律問題，以及完成業務活動，特別是透過法律電子資源。此外，對於法律文獻資源並呈現出下列重要資訊行為特徵，包括：1.「審判或刑事偵查」之執行是引發資訊需求之最重要動機；2.資訊需求類型受擔任角色或職務影響而有差異；3.對中文法律文獻資源之需求與使用高於外文；4對法律電子資源的需求與使用高於紙本式資源；5.傳統基本法學理論與當前法界熱門議題為資訊需求主題重點；6.司法官資訊尋求的變動歷程受促發機制與中介變數所影響；7.偏好正式來源之選擇與獨立研究之習性；8.多為特定目的利用圖書館，並習於直接至書架翻閱查找圖書資訊；9.組織政策、資料庫功能設計及個人因素影響法律電子資源之使用；10.視資料的精確性為評估法律文獻資源之最重要準則；11.制作判決書類是法律文獻資源之最主要運用範疇；12.對法律文獻資源呈現開始、澄清、瀏覽、監視、檢索、資訊交換、蒐集、過濾、比對確認、組織整理、呈現等11種資訊行為活動形態；13.教育程度是決定司法官資訊行為之最重要變數。
根據研究結果，文末分別針對法律文獻資源之出版、提供法律資源之服務、法律資訊系統之設計與服務與法學教學與學術活動等五個面向提出建議。未來研究建議的部分，可以分別從研究議題：法學知識管理、司法官資訊素養等方面來探討，以及研究方法：行動研究之實施、研究對象與場域之擴及等方面來進行研究。

關鍵字

法律文獻資源 ； 司法官 ； 資訊行為 ； 圖書館資訊服務

並列摘要

The government judicial lawsuit system guarantees litigant’s rights and achieves social justice, whereas the judges and prosecutors are the executors. The goal of this study is to understand judges and prosecutors’ information behavior, i.e., their information needs, seeking, and use of law information resources.
Research methods include questionnaire, interview, observation, and content analysis of legal forums. Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered and analyzed. The result shows that law information resources are mainly to support judges and prosecutors when conducting justice and criminal investigation, and they are mostly interested in the information on solving practical legal problems. Opinions of the judgments and the Judicial Yuan interpretation records are the most frequently used information type. The judges and prosecutors seek legal information by various channels, especially by using the law electronic resources. The study also found the following 13 important characteristics of judges and prosecutors’ seeking law information resources, including: 1. The execution of justice or criminal investigation is the most important motive that triggers information needs; 2. The role and mission may have an influence on the types of information needs; 3. The need and use of Chinese law information resources are higher than those in foreign languages; 4. The need and use of law electronic resources is higher than those in paper resources; 5. Basic law theory and latest popular topics are important for legal research; 6. There are a few inspiring mechanisms and intermediary variables influencing information seeking patterns; 7. Formal information resources and independent research are much preferred; 8. Judges and prosecutors utilize library resources mostly for special purposes, and prefer direct shelf browsing; 9. The organization policy, database system design, and some demographic attributes may have influences on the use of law electronic resources; 10. Accuracy is the most important criteria of assessing law information resources; 11. Writing indictments or verdicts is the main purpose of using law information resources; 12. There are 11 forms of activities in law information resources seeking, i.e., begin, clarify, browse, monitor, search, information exchange, collect, filter, compare and confirm, organize, and display; 13. Education level is the most influential factor of judges and prosecutors' information behavior.
An information behavior model of judges and prosecutors is, therefore, proposed, and may benefit future related research. The study also gives suggestions to 4 areas for improvement, including publication of law information resources, legal information services, legal information system design, and law education, etc. Finally, the study provides discussion on some topics for further research, such as personal legal knowledge management, and legal information literacy.