透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.205.5.65
  • 學位論文

人民參與審判制度之研究— 以陪審制與參審制之比較為中心

A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials— Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System

指導教授 : 薛智仁
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


在司法改革議題當中,是否於刑事程序引進「人民參與審判制度」受到高度的關注。人民參與審判制度,主要可分為「分工」與「合作」兩種模式,前者以英美的「陪審制」作為代表;後者則以德國的「參審制」作為典型,這些國家的人民參與審判經驗,值得我國參考借鏡。本文將以「陪審」以及「參審」兩套制度作為比較對象,除了介紹各自之歷史發展與演變過程,本文亦將依序對美國、英國、德國現有之制度設計進行說明,並揭示彼此之間的差異。 接下來,本文更進一步探究制度之正當性基礎。從功能面向來看,陪審制或參審制的支持者認為該機制能為裁判帶來正面影響,亦能在社會與政治層次上創造出正面效應。然而,參酌比較法上的經驗,倡議者所宣稱之種種功能未必皆能發揮,故以之作為正當性依據,說服力仍顯不足;從抽象理論的面向來看,以常見之民主模式加以檢驗後,即可發現現有的機制難以符合民主原則之要求。因此,不論是功能性還是抽象民主原則之論述,均難以成為支持制度存在或引進之有力依據。 關於人民參與審判在我國之建構,首先是制度目的之檢討。參考比較法的經驗,並衡量我國的現實狀況後,本文認為引進未必能協助我國化解司法信賴低落之危機;而現有機制難以通過民主原則檢驗,以致於促進司法系統民主化之目的難以達成。其次,制度在具體運作上仍存有違憲疑慮。最後,引進制度也可能為我們帶來新的困境,如何因應相關難題也將成為一大挑戰。

並列摘要


The issue of whether we should introduce the lay judge system into criminal justice system has been highly concerned. The systems of lay participation in criminal trials are mainly divided into two major types, “division of labor” and “cooperation”. The American and the English jury and the German mixed-court are the typical representatives of the two types respectively. The experiences of these countries worthily become our reference. The focus of this paper is the comparison of these two different lay judge systems. First of all, this paper introduces historical developments and evolutions of these systems. After that, the system designing and the differences between these systems are also discussed in this paper. Furthermore, this paper explores the legitimate basis of these systems. Supporters argue that the systems can make a positive impact on judgments and on the social and political aspects. However, considering the experiences of countries with jury system or mixed court, we can find that “the expected functions” are not fully achieved. Therefore, it is hard to justify the system from a functional point of view. From an abstract point of view, these systems fail to meet the requirements of democracy principles and they are not good examples of democracy models. Thus, these arguments cannot provide a strong foundation for the lay judge systems. After analyzing the purposes of constructing a lay judge system in Taiwan, this paper points out that such systems cannot contribute to resolving the crisis of judicial trust. Besides, the systems are inconsistent with democracy principles, so that the purpose of promoting the democratization of the judicial system is difficult to achieve. In addition, the operation of the systems might violate the constitution. Finally, the introduction of such systems might also generate a new dilemma. Dealing with these difficulties will be a big challenge.

參考文獻


何賴傑(2012)。〈從德國參審制談司法院人民觀審制〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,41卷特刊,頁1189-1243。
林裕順(2011)。〈人民參審審議式民主〉,《司法改革雜誌》,86期,頁40-42。
林超駿(2011)。〈法律組織、訴訟程序與案件控管—初論英國治安法院制度〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,194期,頁52-67。
O’Connor, S. D.(著),信春鷹、葛明珍(譯)(2009)。《我在最高法院的日子:歐康諾訴說法律的尊嚴》。台北:博雅書屋。
黃旭田(2002)。〈台灣地區中小學法治教育之現況與展望〉,《司法改革雜誌》,38期,頁62-65。

延伸閱讀