鑑識人員與被害人對於DNA證據之評價研究： 以嘉義市政府警察局為例

陳得恩(Chan De-en)

指導教授 ： 陳慈幸

國立中正大學/教育學院/犯罪防治學系/碩士(2015年)

摘要

本研究旨在探討鑑識人員以及被害人對於DNA證據之評價，其中坪價包含DNA證據之證據力與證據能力之探討以及對於DNA資料庫的之探討。研究者試以刑事訴訟法之角度出發，採質性研究方法，自嘉義市政府警察局內從事刑事案件現場採證人員4名，以及嘉義市轄區內之竊盜案件中之被害人3名立意抽樣訪談，了解其對於DNA證據之評價。
研究發現如下：(一)嘉義市轄區之刑事案件以竊盜與車禍案件為大宗，於刑案現場採集證據(含DNA證據)於刑案現場的採集日益困難，惟鑑識人員對於DNA證據普遍認為具備證據能力。(二)刑事鑑識人員認為DNA證據之證據能力，故贊成DNA證據運用於刑案現場，惟刑事鑑識人員採集刑案現場之DNA證據需要靠經驗的累積。(三)刑事鑑識人員普遍贊成DNA資料庫之建置，對於資料庫內建檔資料普遍贊同應該要擴大建檔，其擴大建檔之對象應該包含再犯率高犯罪；且多數刑事鑑人員認為犯罪嫌疑人在偵查中做DNA建檔較為適宜，因在法律倫理上較有法源依據。(四)嘉義市轄區之被害人以竊盜案件為大宗，其中部分竊盜案件係發生於係發生於公眾場合，係屬不特定多數人可以接觸之廠所，故採集到之DNA證據之證據力有待商確。(五)被害人普遍贊成DNA證據運用於刑案現場，認為DNA證據具備有證據能力。(六)被害人普遍贊成DNA資料庫之建置，且多數認為可以對於全民DNA資料庫建檔，少數認為應對再犯率高犯罪DNA資料庫建檔；於建檔時機部分多數認為判決確定後較有法律依據。

關鍵字

DNA證據

並列摘要

This study was designed to investigate the evaluation of DNA evidence made by forensic officers and the victims, including the function of DNA evidence and its database. Researchers use qualitative research according to The Code of Criminal Procedure and picked up four forensic officers and three victims of theft cases randomly in order to understand the assessment of DNA evidence.

The research found the following points: A) the criminal cases in chiayi city are mostly about theft and car accident. Since it's difficult to collect evidences(including DNA evidence) in such a crime scene, the forensic officers generally considered that DNA evidence has the ability to justify a case. B) forensic officers generally in favor of using DNA evidence in a crime scene as it has the ability to justify a case, but collecting DNA evidence in a crime scene needs to rely on years of experiences. C) forensic officers generally approved of building up DNA database and extending its archives which included recidivists' data; most officers thought it's more appropriate to file the information of suspects during the investigation since it was more concrete according to legal ethics. D) theft is the most common crime cases in Chiayi City; some of it occurred in public places which could't specify any targets so the collected DNA evidence was debatable. E) the victims generally agree using DNA evidence in a crime scene because of it can justify a case. F) victims generally in favor of building up DNA database. Most of them suggested this could be a nationwide archives and the others thought it should archive DNA evidence of those recidivists. About when to build up DNA database, most people thought it should wait until the final legal decision was made.

參考文獻

林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法(上)，2007年，571~574頁。

立法院第7屆第1會期司法及法制委員會第16次全體委員會會議紀錄，12頁。

孟憲輝，鑑識機構之設立、品保及鑑識人才養成問題，司法改革雜誌第40期，2002年8月，31頁。

唐淑美、李介民，我國司法實務有關DNA 鑑定對刑事犯罪認定有效性之分析，東海大學法學研究第二十一期， 2004，62頁。

唐淑美、李介民，我國司法實務有關DNA鑑定對於刑事犯罪認定之有效性分析，東海大學法學研究第二十一期，2004年12月，62頁。