透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.152.77.92
  • 學位論文

性侵害常見有罪認定證據構造之檢討-以被害人指述、驗傷診斷書與PTSD為中心

A Review on Common Evidence Structure in Sexual Assault Convictions:Focused on Victim's Account, Forensic Examination and PTSD

指導教授 : 謝煜偉

摘要


本研究之主要目的在於檢討在現今性侵害判決實務中,已逐漸透過判決累積而出之既定審理模式與證據架構,是否有所缺失之處。法院常用之證據構造以被害人指述作為主要且直接之證據,另以證人供述、驗傷診斷書、被害人之PTSD鑑定報告、被告之測謊鑑定報告作為補強證據。相較其他刑事案件,性侵害案件常見之證據構造,實際上只有被害人指述直接指向犯罪構成要件事實,因而本文認為並不符合適用超法規補強法則之要求。 就性侵害被害人指述須適用補強證據之部分,本文比較了自白補強法則、超法規補強法則,以及性侵害案件中所適用補強法則之具體內涵,實務雖維持一貫綜合判斷之見解,然在性侵害案件中對於補強證據之要求,卻有較為寬鬆之認定。其中,本文認為依照實務對於補強證據「須具證據能力且與被害人指述不具同一性始具補強適格性」之要求,則PTSD鑑定報告是否具補強證據適格性則有待商榷。另於補強範圍與程度之部分,於性侵害案件中實務亦有不同見解,本文認為應以對犯罪構成要件補強為原則。 此外,本文亦針對個別補強證據進行檢討,對於驗傷診斷書與PTSD鑑定報告,由其學科專業領域出發探討原始定義後,論述上開結論於法學中適用時會發生之衝突與問題,並於文章最後提出本文就性侵害案件中常見事實認定模式之檢討。

並列摘要


This article examines the evidence structure and trial patterns constructed by sexual assault convictions in Taiwan. The main evidences used in Taiwanese rape trials is victims' accounts, corroborated with forensic examinations, evidential reports of PTSD and polygraph. Compared with other criminal cases, this study propose that there is only victim's accounts proof to objective elements in the common evidence structure in sexual assault convictions. This article compared the standards for using corroborating evidences under Corroborative Rule, extra-statutory Corroborative Rule, and in sexual assault convictions. In respect of the eligibility of corroborating evidences, this study doubted that whether PTSD reports could be used for corroborate victim's account. Additionally, court opinions differ when it comes to the scopes and levels of corroborating evidences, this article proposes that corroborating evidences in sexual assault cases shall only be considered when they strengths the degree of proof to objective elements. Additionally, this article also reviews corroborating evidences, specifically on forensic examinations and evidential reports of PTSD. After defining the nature of forensic examinations and evidential reports of PTSD, this article discussed potential problems and conflicts between areas of science and laws. Finally, this article reviews patterns of authenticating common facts in sexual assault trials.

參考文獻


一、中文文獻
吳巡龍(2008)。《刑事訴訟法與證據法全集》。臺北:新學林。
林故廷、翁景惠(2003)。《測謊一百問》。臺中:祐書文化。
林鈺雄(2013)。《刑事訴訟法(上)》,七版。臺北:元照。
陳祐治(2009)。《證據法案例解說》。臺北:世新大學。

被引用紀錄


謝煜偉(2021)。評析司法院釋字第789號解釋:兼論供述證據信用性之判斷臺大法學論叢50(4),1863-1921。https://doi.org/10.6199%2fNTULJ.202112_50(4).0004

延伸閱讀