刑罰是知識結構與文化的鏡子：台灣與英國嚴刑重罰趨勢之比較研究

本研究兩個重要目的：第一，進行各國刑罰比較時，除了監禁率外，是否有其他更好的測量方法？第二，我們如何解釋各國刑罰差異的原因？經過文獻比較分析後，本研究發現以監禁率來比較各國嚴刑重罰有著嚴重的不準確度，本文建議若要進行跨國比較，至少應該包括報案率、定罪率、監禁率、平均刑期、實際執行刑期等變項，這也是在目前不完美狀況下，還算可以接受的方法。其次，本研究比較兩地1993-2007官方統計後，發現英格蘭∕威爾斯的法定刑較高，刑事司法體系的漏斗效應較寬鬆；台灣的監禁率的增加來自入獄機率高，而英格蘭∕威爾斯的高監禁率，則可能來自宣告刑較高；就實際執行刑期來看，英格蘭∕威爾斯的執行時間與犯罪嚴重性成正比，台灣則成反比，亦即愈嚴重的犯罪，實際服刑時間愈短，愈輕微的案件，實際服刑時間反而越長。最後，再以訪談兩地法官就個案之刑罰的結果發現，竊盜在量刑結果高度類似，也與官方統計資料吻合；性侵害犯罪方面，英格蘭∕威爾斯的刑度較高，家暴、酒醉駕車非常之輕微，台灣法官對於殺人、強盜搶奪、詐欺等罪之刑度較高；各種犯罪類型總體趨勢來看，台灣法官傾向於使用徒刑做為嚇阻、預防累犯的手段，但刑期均較低；而英格蘭∕威爾斯法官，則更傾向於所謂的「兩極化刑事政策」，輕罪傾向於以社區處遇，重罪（如殺人、性侵害）則量刑極微嚴重；若僅就重罪的量刑來看，英格蘭∕威爾斯法官似乎認定性侵害犯罪幾乎與殺人犯罪一樣嚴重，而台灣法官則視涉及侵害生命法益的殺人罪比性侵害更為嚴重；科刑考量因素上，兩國法官相同之處為均以前科或累犯次數為最重要之考量變項，其次為犯罪造成之損害，以及不法所得高低；差異處則在於台灣法官更重視是否和解與被告之悔意。本文認為最適合用來解釋各國嚴刑重罰政策者，是知識官僚化與控制文化的差異。

關鍵字

比較犯罪學；監禁率；科刑

並列摘要

Two questions were at the center of this study: first, what are the most appropriate measures for cross-national comparison of punitiveness? Second, how should we try to explain any observed differences between countries? Our research indicates that crime reporting rate, conviction rate, imprisonment rate, average length of sentence, actual time served are among those potential measurements of cross-national comparison of punitiveness. Although conceptually simple, they do provide criminologically meaningful data commensurate with our notion of 'punitiveness'. In the time period under study (from 1993 to 2007) results show that England/Wales had higher mandatory sentences, lower conviction rates, but longer sentences and actual time served in prison compared with Taiwan. Indeed, compared to Taiwan, overall system levels of 'punitiveness' in England/Wales appear more lenient. To examine punitiveness at point-of-sentence, sentencing outcomes by scenario were examined, using a 30 interview sample of sentencers in Taiwan and England/Wales. The Taiwan average sentence lengths given by sentencers are considerably higher, particularly so for the financial/corruption cases where in England/Wales higher sentence lengths are for rape cases. Sentencers from England and Wales opted for a non-custodial order in relation to drink-driving and domestic violence where in Taiwan short sentences were awarded to deterrent the crimes. Another interesting finding is the similarity of logic used in determining sentence for each of the cases; and the similarity of use of particular variables such as previous convictions and damage by offenses. The only exception appears to the variables of 'remorse', 'recompense' and 'social background of defendant' in Taiwan which have no equivalent usage among sentencers from England and Wales. In trying to explain overall findings, the study reviews the existing theoretical literature and concludes that differences in 'punitiveness' as measured by imprisonment rate are best seen in the context of political institutional development, bureaucratization of knowledge production and cultural sensibility.