透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.117.158.47
  • 學位論文

廢除死刑運動之研究-以停止執行死刑運動為策略

The Death Penalty Abolition Movement With the Moratorium Strategy

指導教授 : 盧映潔
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


本論文之研究主題為「廢除死刑運動之研究-以停止執行死刑運動為策略」。二次世界大戰後國際間廢除死刑趨勢甚為明顯,透過國際人權法之訂定,或透過國際人權組織機構運作,廢除死刑陣營持續對死刑存在國死刑適用進行關切與施壓。就廢除死刑部分,如聯合國大會於1989年決議訂定公民與政治權利公約第二議定書,聯合國人權事務委員會對公民及政治權利公約締約國死刑適用情形之監督,人權理事會透過「全球定期審查」機制,審查聯合國會員國人權義務之實現情形。歐洲理事會則於先後於1983年、2002年增定歐洲人權公約第六、第十三議定書,歐洲聯盟1998年制訂對第三國死刑政策指導方針等。就停止執行死刑方面,聯合國大會於2007年、2008年、2010年相繼以62/149、63/168、65/206決議案呼籲全球停止執行死刑,歐盟更對可能被用於執行死刑之貨物貿易進行規制,也標誌著國際間停止執行死刑運動之形成與運作。由於並無全球一次性廢除死刑之可能,同時既然不能要求死刑存在國立即廢除死刑,至少,可以要求死刑存在國停止處決,採取此種停止執行死刑運動策略,對國際間之廢除死刑運動而言,應該是必然之方式,也獲得了一定成果。美國在國際人權法制訂、簽署時對於死刑制度之適用與保留,在對他國國民在其境內犯罪遭判處死刑之個案上,不顧國際法院之命令,使美國在國際社會中嚴重孤立,也在國際地位、外交關係、引渡問題、反恐戰爭、商業投資等議題上遭受不利益。而美國孤立之原因,可以自高兇殺率及民意、犯罪問題凸顯為政治議題、強調「法律與秩序」、平民主義、美國聯邦主義、地方主義、州權的堅持、南方州蓄奴歷史與種族問題、或自歐洲戰爭歷史及政治制度等面向進行解釋與觀察。而自美國廢除死刑之歷史來看,至20世紀中,伴隨民權運動,自由主義改革的社會背景,LDF律師提出了停止執行死刑策略,使美國自1967年至1977年10年間停止執行死刑,聯邦最高法院之司法菁英並於1972年在Furman案中宣告死刑違憲,但也造成了反動效果。儘管隨後聯邦最高法院在1976年Gregg案中肯定了新死刑法制的合憲性,也重行開啟處決死囚恢復執行死刑之階段。但將近30年後,時至20世紀末21世紀初,死刑反對者將焦點自法院轉移至其他場域,特別是個別州的州長及立法,開啟另一個新面向的停止執行死刑運動。伊利諾州州長George Ryan於2000年及2003年停止執行死刑之動作,是新世紀停止執行死刑運動最常被提及的代表事件。晚近2011年則有奧勒岡州州長宣布該州停止執行死刑。而前述新面向之停止執行死刑運動所以產生,另有諸如Furman案、Gregg案聯邦最高法院大法官Blackmun、Powell、Stevens等法官發言反對死刑制度;新科技的發展等努力揭露死刑案件的錯誤;政治人物保守主義者及其餘各界人士開始發言反對死刑等因素。而我國自2006年起至2010年4月維持了4年多停止執行死刑之紀錄,見證了我國停止執行死刑運動之形成與成果,但迄今政府僅確立了「漸進式廢除死刑政策」。我國在解嚴後,朝向一個更重視人權,更朝向人道化發展的方向前進,此過程中,國家同時經歷了民主轉型之過程,一個自由化,民主化轉型之過程,開啟了國內停止執行死刑時期,但如同少數菁英領導民意般,留下反動勢力的伏筆。二次政黨輪替後,執政者由自由主義改革者變成保守主義份子,同時錯認我國政治社會結構與美國之情形有所相同。同時,死刑的意涵,在真正民主化後,成為政治人物的工具,又或者人民證明自身意志的象徵,使得此項議題越發複雜。參考外國經驗,停止執行死刑可能採取的作法,包括:制訂停止執行死刑的特別立法,利用國家元首赦免權,藉由執行死刑之權力停止執行死刑,但均屬寄望政治人物之作為。當死刑議題高度政治化,如何在一個新的執政氛圍中,透過政治、立法面向的努力,尋求政治人物支持,實屬重要。另外未來應兼顧提出替代方案與推動停止執行死刑。在替代方案之選擇上,法務部委託研究報告曾提出改良無期徒刑之建議,另有學者參照德國法制提出「安全管束監禁制度」,均值得吾人重視。此外,應更加精進並宣導包括刑事案件乃至暴力事件之發生與處決死刑與否應難認有直接關係、死刑制度的脆弱易錯性、不可回復性、刑事司法制度的功能極限、死刑遭國家機器濫用等問題在內之死刑廢止與停止執行死刑理由,並促使人民尊重並重視個人生命權的憲法基本權利價值。同時,在文化認同上,不能囫圇吞棗式的凡事以美國為師。最末應考慮提升犯罪被害人保護層級與機制。

並列摘要


The thesis observes and analyzes ” The Death Penalty Abolition Movement With the Moratorium Strategy”. The progress of Abolitionism after the World War Ⅱ is apparent. Via the draft of international conventions and the operation of the international institutions, the abolitionist countries constantly push the retentionist ones to inspect and scrutinize the imposition of death penalty, and call on the retentionist countries to apply a moratorium and abolish the punishment. The commitments of United Nation to abolition, like The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1989, the supervision of human rights conditions of members by Human Rights Committee, and the “UPR” mechanism of Human Rights Council, are noticed. The Council of Europe also achieved to adopt The Protocol No.6 to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1983 and The Protocol No.13 in 2002. European Union established “Guideline to EU Policy towards Third Countries on the Death Penalty” in 1998. The UN General Assembly adopted resolution 62/149 to call on States maintain the death penalty establish a moratorium in 2007, and again resolution 63/168 in 2008, and again 65/206 in 2010. The European Union also adopted the regulation concerning trade in certain goods could be used for capital punishment in 2005. A global trend and movement toward abolition and moratorium is evidenced. To abolish the death penalty once and for all globally and immediately is no expectation, and Moratorium Strategy to Global Abolition is inevitable. The United States is isolated from the abolitionist countries for its reservation while it signed international conventions, and for its ignorance of the conjunction by ICJ to halt on executing foreign nationals. The United States suffers from the death penalty in losing its weight and status on human rights arena, harming diplomatic relations, undermining the cooperation in extradition and anti-terrorism, jeopardizing business and investment with other countries. The Isolationism could resulted from Homicide Rates, Public Opinion, Law and Order issue, Populism, Federalism, Localism and States’ rights, European Exceptionalism. “Moratorium Strategy” emerged from attorneys of LDF in a circumstance of civil rights activism and liberal reform movement in mid-twentieth century, and resulted in national moratorium from 1967 to 1977. The Supreme Court held that imposition of the death penalty constituted ”cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment in Furman v. Georgia in 1972, then upheld the constitutionality of new death penalty statutes in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. After one generation, the reformers switched their focus on court to other arena while some states took some initiatives. Governor George Ryan announced moratorium on executions in 2001 and commuted for inmates on death row in Illinois in 2003, was one of the most significant events in shaping moratorium movement to a new dimension. Recently Governor John Kitzhaber also announced moratorium on executions in 2011 in Oregon. Other events, like former Justice Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and other politicians, conservatives spoke out against the death penalty, the growing concern about innocent capital defendants while new technology or other efforts revealed errors in capital cases, also contributed to the moratorium movement. That Taiwan did not execute inmates from 2006 to 2010, documented the progress of the moratorium movement. But today only “abolish gradually” policy could be sure in Taiwan. While renounced martial law, Taiwan is on its way to be more humanized, with more human-rights vision. Taiwan experienced democratic transformation, liberalization, and also accumulated momentum to rebound. When KMT regained its ruling power, the liberal government leader also replaced by a conservative one, and the new leader modeled on America Isolationism, the death penalty also became an electoral tool, a symbol of peoples’ will. To apply a moratorium via legislation, commutation, discretion needs political commitments and support. Other issues such as “Sicherungsverwahrung” could be one of the alternatives to death penalty, to remind the fragility, irrevocability and abuses of death penalty, acculturation to international human rights community, and to raise the protection and support to the victim families, are all serious concerns.

參考文獻


3、吳志光,「死刑問題與司法程序」,2002年6月15日,財團法人民間司法改革基金會網站,網址:
4、李仰桓(東吳大學張佛泉人權研究中心研究員),「臺灣廢除死刑運動的發展概況」,網址:
7、陳健民,「從死刑執行方式論死刑存廢」,2001年10月15日,財團法人國家政策研究基金會國政研究報告,網址:
11、盧映潔,「死刑存在=犯罪被害人之保護?-簡論德國與台灣之被害人保護措施」,月旦法學雜誌,第113期,頁93-109,2004年10月。
2009年5月10日。

延伸閱讀


  • 王建文(2009)。廢除死刑之法理研究〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-2808200902382700
  • 黃聰明(2011)。廢除死刑之論理大葉大學通識教育學報(8),187-195。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=20713673-201112-201204130002-201204130002-188-196
  • 黃明選(2007)。我國廢止死刑政策之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-2910200810545310
  • 釋昭慧(2003)。廢除死刑的佛法觀點哲學與文化30(1),133-144。https://doi.org/10.7065/MRPC.200301.0133
  • 林朝雲(2021)。Reviewing the Possibility of Rehabilitation in death penalty cases玄奘法律學報(36),91-126。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20201215001-202112-202208300005-202208300005-91-126