論血親性交罪之適格保護內涵

The Study in Eligible Penalty Bases of Criminal Offense of Cognate Sexual Intercourse

呂昕昀(Hsin-Yun Lu)

指導教授 ： 黃榮堅

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.00988

摘要

檢驗刑事立法正當性的標準，必須要兼顧哪些價值取捨，才能夠真正找出刑法的適格保護內涵？而在探尋各個犯罪的保護內涵時，通常會出現一句變成口號式卻未必有被仔細深思過的話：「刑法不能處罰單純違反道德。」也就是說，道德通常被認為不可以是一種「法益」。但是，如果道德真的不能作為一種法益，那妨害風化罪章中的這些犯罪，又該以什麼內容作為它們的適格保護內涵？再於本罪章中發現血親性交行為之處罰規定，體系位置上不同於其他的性犯罪列在以「性自主」為保護內涵的罪章，反而被歸類為只是一種妨害風化行為，那麼本條犯罪之適格保護內涵會是什麼呢？自此，確立本文兩大主題：探尋刑法適格保護內涵之標準，並以此標準找出血親性交罪之適格保護內涵。

本文先由探究本國與德國血親性交罪之規定內容與淵源。心理學上正好分為與血緣親近者發展親密關係是人類天性，與人天生會抗拒與血親發生性關係兩派。至於亂倫禁忌之探源則發現此禁忌除了反應古老的宗教信仰與氏族社會習俗外，並無法多做解釋為何我們需要這個禁忌。而兩國的立法、實務與學說則指引出處罰血親性交行為不僅與兩個族群長久以來的道德風俗相符合，而可被國家統治者作為管控社會生活之利器，也可能意在保護性自主、優生利益、婚姻與家庭制度、心理健康、人格發展等價值。

接著，藉由以追求個人利益為主旨的自由主義與以追求群體共同善為目標的社群主義之對比，可以更清楚的得知，所認同的個人觀與價值取捨標準不同，對於檢驗與詮釋立法正當性之結果，能夠開展出怎樣不同的視野。而考量到法律與憲法之位階關係，刑法的處罰規定是否正當，顯然要能夠通過是否與憲法基本權價值相融的比例原則檢驗。經過以上理論內容的探尋，本文採納社群主義個人觀為理解法規範秩序的基底，通過德沃金「整全法」之概念操作憲法比例原則，檢驗刑法規定可能的保護內涵是否具有適格性。

接下來便一一檢驗血親性交罪可能的保護內涵。（一）性自主：因為另有妨害性自主罪章之規定可處理血親性交行為中可能欠缺合意或合意有瑕疵的問題，基本上不需要利用本條保護性自主。若再深究性自主之內涵，詮釋為只保護「國家認可之性行為」無法融貫於基本權，如果以個人可與他人相調和的自由開展空間為標準，則處罰規定過度侵害個人自主，無法作為本罪之適格保護內涵。（二）優生學：近親生育確實有較高之遺傳疾病風險，而優生學在維持個體健康、提升個人生活水準上也具正面效益，但亦有將個體價值貶低於國家之下之疑慮；且若採取刑罰禁制，反將導致高危險群不願出面配合優生策略，並非適合之手段。然而，在考量對生命權之保障更重要之價值在於維護其完滿性，以刑罰貫徹此目的或許也符合大眾之期望。（三）婚姻與家庭制度：亂倫對於婚姻與家庭照料與情感依賴之機能之威脅僅在於該家庭中不能再以一般所預期的型態發揮，但不應遽指不同於一般情形就已構成侵害。（四）心理健康與人格發展：亂倫家庭成員確實可能發生角色認同錯亂、欠缺一般的親情依戀、因害怕被指點而較自閉退縮等個性特徵，但是只要性交行為是出於沒有瑕疵的合意，國家基於實質法治國原則不僅要對個人所型塑之生活給予最大的尊重，不應對不符一般期待者刑罰相向，更應積極扶助能力不足者，使人人皆能有的自主揮灑人生的空間。
接下來到了檢驗「刑法究竟應不應該保護道德」的時刻。在憲法基本權標準必須去劃分是否關涉他人而可能有模糊空間的情況下，再次分別以自由主義、社群主義道德觀的來回拉扯，企圖找出更明確回答這個問題的標準。最終，在回歸最原初對人性需求與包容的體察之下，本文認為在高度強制力的刑法領域下，應該留下讓人性可以不要那麼完美、不要那麼符合大眾期待的喘息空間，如此也才算是對人性尊嚴最鄭重的保護。

在社群主義的觀點下，社群成員隨時間更替流轉，他們想追求之「共同善」的內涵也永遠流動著。道德風俗的犯罪規定到底該存該廢？隨著社會趨勢不斷演進，未來也許因為多元成家法案讓婚姻與家庭的圖像更繽紛多彩，答案永遠等著後人來推翻。

關鍵字

適格保護內涵 ； 妨害風化 ； 血親性交 ； 自由主義 ； 社群主義 ； 性自主 ； 優生學 ； 婚姻與家庭制度 ； 心理健康 ； 人格發展

並列摘要

The different standards of examining the eligible penalty bases, would show various values—which one will tell the most appropriate answer to the eligible penalty bases? When we are on the road of finding the eligible penalty bases, we always hear this: “We can’t punish the action only offending morality.” But unfortunately, almost no one paid sometime to meditate that this sentence is true or false. The scholar also proposed that command often in the other statement: “Morality cannot be a kind of law benefit.” While these statements seems true, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Criminal Code Chapter 16-1 however is named “Offense against Morality”. Does it means all criminal offenses in the chapter 16-1 has no eligible penalty bases? Different from other sexual crime locating at the chapter 16 “Sexual Self-Determination Offense”, criminal offense of cognate sexual intercourse is the only article had put in the “Offense against Morality” chapter. What actually are the eligible penalty basis if morality cannot be the one? “Which standard could tell the most appropriate answer to the eligible penalty bases?” and “What are the eligible penalty basis of criminal offense of cognate sexual intercourse?” are the two major topics in this thesis.

On topic of “Which standard could tell the most appropriate answer to the eligible penalty bases?”: To contrast between liberalism and communitarianism, the distinct priority among various values. Liberalism locate “Personal benefit” in the middle of the earth, while communitarianism promote the “Common Good”, which means the important value that everyone can share and cherish. In the thesis, based on communitarianism and by Ronald Dworkin’s “law as integrity” concept, is the standard will be used for solving the following topic. In concern that the top of constitution criterion, the eligible penalty basis shouldn’t contradict the spirits and values of constitution. Therefore, to solve the following topic, using rule of proportionality, and the communitarianism and Ronald Dworkin’s “law as integrity” will be used as the standard of benefits measurement.

On topic of “What are the eligible penalty basis of criminal offense of cognate sexual intercourse?”: 1. Sexual Self-Determination: While there are others article in Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code, this article only could punish the criminal who has a consent about the sexual intercourse from the sexual mate. Accordingly, sexual self-determination can’t be the eligible penalty basis to this article. Furthermore, It is an injustice invasion to individual self-determination that the country setting the criminal offense of cognate sexual intercourse to forbidden people choosing the cognation as sexual mates. 2. Eugenics: Although eugenics can rise the healthy level of a country, it could be a serious discrimination toward those who born to be weak、illnesses or disable. The latter obviously contradict the value of constitution. In addition, the criminal punishment is scared who most-needed the eugenics strategy, thus it is not an appropriate way. 3. Marriage and Family: Everyone should have the right to follow their own mind to choose how to and with who have a marriage and family. The country law shouldn’t punish people only because their marriage or family is not “normal”. 4. Mental Health and the Development of Personality：After the cognate sexual intercourse, the involvers might show some side effect, like realistic fears of disclosure、loss of maternal Protection and attachment needs、Pseudomaturity…etc. But as the former said, everyone should show respect to each other, including the country. Additionally, the country should conduct the mission of constitution: make everyone “substantive equality” and be able to develop what they would like by true self-determination.

Last but not least: “Should morality be an eligible penalty basis?” Thinking of the “Stigma” effect of penalty, we should have room to a person not need to worry about let anyone else down. That’s also the top respect to human dignity.

並列關鍵字

eligible penalty basis ； offense against morality ； cognate sexual intercourse ； liberalism ； communitarianism ； sexual self-determination ； eugenics ； marriage and family ； mental health ； development of personality

參考文獻

馬漢寶，《法律與中國社會之變遷》，台北：自刊，1999年。

林記弘，《心理傷害之刑法定位》，國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，2010年。

林志鍵，《性自主？性桎梏？－我國刑法性自主犯罪之分析與批判》，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，2006年。

吳忻穎，《性自主法益之研究——以兒童及青少年之性自主為核心》，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2013年。

Joecks, Wolfgang, Studienkommentar StGB, Munchen: Verlag C.H.Beck, 8 Aufl., 2009.