- 學位論文
我國酒後駕車刑事量刑之實證研究
The Empirical Research of Criminal Sentencing on Driving under the Influence (DUI) in Taiwan
摘要
本論文為瞭解社會關注的酒後駕車致人死傷問題，試著從量刑的角度著手，研究目的在探討法官審理案件為判決時所得依據或參考的量尺為何，並比較各國之量刑法制與現階段我國實務的運用，以及我國在修法前後實務量刑有無歧異情形。研究方法係採相關文獻探討、問卷調查及判決書分析等實證研究方法為之，惟並不採嚴格的量化分析而為探討，僅以在法律實證的層面分析運用頗多之簡單的回收問卷或統計方法為之，共計回收中部地區地方法院刑事庭法官助理的問卷71份，並蒐集適用2013年6月修法後刑法，全國各地方法院酒後駕車致人於死或重傷之有罪判決書125件，作為本研究分析的資料。 本研究彙整後的研究結果如下：一、修法之後酒後駕車肇事件數確有減少；二、需持續充實量刑資訊並配合修改相關法律；三、修法後的量刑仍為偏低且不一致。同時說明本研究的限制，例如統計資料累積不足、研究對象缺乏量刑資訊的全面性。最後提出四點建議：一、設立專責法制化的量刑研究委員會，二、持續充實精進量刑資訊系統，三、從事量刑實證與法規範的研究，四、加速刑事訴訟法等法之改革。期能作為將來量刑改革政策的參考。
並列摘要
This thesis is trying to focus on the angle in sentencing to comprehend the momentous issue in our society, which is “Driving under the influence”. The goal of this study is discussing what the scales and principles the Judges to base on or refer to through the trial and hearing. Simultaneously, comparing the sentencing in every countries’ law system and the situation in Taiwan’s practical region, also checking whether there’s any difference around the period of the amend legislature. The research methods are literature review, questionnaire survey and verdicts analysis. The amount recovery of questionnaires are 71, the subjects are the judge’s assistant in district courts of middle Taiwan. The verdicts are from the all district courts about the criminal cases of driving under the influence (DUI) after the amending in June, 2013. , including death results and aggravated injury results, the amount number of verdicts are 125 as the main analyzing data in the study. The research results are as following: (1) the cases of driving under the influence reduced after the amending; (2) still need to develop the sentencing system and to operate and modify the related laws; (3) the tendency of the sentencing are still flat and inconsistent. The limitations of the research are lack of the statistics and the subjects are not completeness. In conclusion, there are 4 suggestions in the study: (1) to set up a dedicated and legalize sentencing research council; (2) to continue developing the sentencing informational system; (3) to do more empirical researches of the sentencing; (4) to accelerate the reform of the Criminal Procedure Code and other laws.