一個強暴，各自表述？──從框架觀點省視戰後婦運的強暴法律改革（1971-1999）

To Each His/Her Own? The Women's Movement and Rape Law Reform in Post-war Taiwan（1971-1999）

湯詠煊(Yung-HsuanTang)

指導教授 ： 陳昭如

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.01459

摘要

本文運用構框理論回顧婦運倡議強暴法律改革的歷史過程，俾以重新評價1999年刑法「妨害性自主罪章」修法的歷史意義。我們所要問的問題是：從戰後到90年代末期強暴法律改變以前，台灣出現了哪幾種對強暴問題的不同構框方式？這些不同的認知框架如何對話與碰撞，最終造就了我國現有的強暴規範？

在70年代，主流法學論述以所謂的「保衛風化」框架看待強暴問題。刑法規範對強暴犯罪的界定中，隱含了父權的意識型態，而「保衛風化」框架界定強暴問題的方式，迴避了父權結構檢討與司法制度改革的可能。與此同時，政治人物則以一種「維持治安」框架看待強暴問題，他們認為強暴犯罪破壞了社會秩序，應透過加重刑罰、取消告訴乃論制及加強取締不良份子等方法，來改善強暴問題。除了這兩種主流框架外，70年代也已出現從性別角度定位強暴的聲音。除了女作家們批判強暴問題的雜文，及美國女性主義的譯介作品外，呂秀蓮透過舉辦座談會、撰寫文章與成立「保護妳」專線，積極討論、批判鮮少獲公共論壇重視的強暴問題。她的批判中隱然浮現一種女人批判強暴問題的新構框。

呂秀蓮雖然因美麗島事件而入獄，台灣婦運對強暴問題的批判並未停止。1982年婦女新知雜誌社成立後，許多婦運者延續著呂秀蓮的努力，繼續從性別角度來針砭強暴問題。而婦女新知與其他團體共同舉辦的1984年「保護婦女年」活動，更象徵強暴、性騷擾問題在台灣婦運界議程中開始具備一定的重要性，不同婦女團體各自以不同方式，共同打造一個從女人觀點批判強暴問題的「保障性自主」框架。婦女團體反強暴運動的努力大致可分為兩條軸線。其一是透過事實調查，建構關於強暴的新的犯罪圖像，並拆解主流論述的強暴神話；其二是關於被害婦女的事後處遇，在警察、醫療、司法單位所遭受的不友善對待，婦女團體在論述和制度改革方面均做出了一定成果。另一方面，從80年代末期開始，採「維持治安」框架的政治人物在「危害治安治罪暫行條例」、「精神衛生法」和刑法第77條「強制診療」規定的立法辯論時，紛紛提出他們對強暴法律的改革主張。1994年，立法院三讀通過潘維剛刑法第77條修正案，更象徵著「維持治安」框架爭取強暴問題詮釋權的一大勝利。「保障性自主」框架與「維持治安」框架均是想要改變現狀的「挑戰者」框架。然而，這一階段的政治人物並未重視婦女團體對強暴的批判，他們所提出的改革方案，往往忽略被害婦女的保障，或再製了強暴神話。

1994年3月，立委潘維剛在立法院會提出「性侵害犯罪防治法草案」說明，婦女團體擁有了以「保障性自主」框架出發制定的新草案，得以挑戰既有的刑法規範。有別於當時反性騷擾大遊行中出現的「性別宰制」構框，潘版草案以「性別中立」構框的方式定位強暴，並採取抹平男女差異的中性化立法模式。然而，妥協性的構框並未獲得支持，採「保衛風化」框架的政治人物，無法接受「性自主」新法益與「婚內強暴入罪化」的可能，立法進度因而擱置停擺。1996年底爆發的「彭婉如命案」，及90年代末期台灣諸多重大犯罪事件的發生，為強暴法律的改革再度提供契機。社會「維持治安」的呼聲甚囂塵上，「維持治安」框架也影響了1998年刑法修正案的具體內容。在「保障性自主」框架與「維持治安」框架的結盟下，1999年刑法妨害性自主罪章順利通過。然而，隨之而來的是刑法學界關於此次修法「立法草率、重刑化」的批評。仔細分析刑法學界的修法評價，我們發現此種負面評價可視為是舊有的「保衛風化」框架的反撲，而與「維持治安」框架合作的代價，便是此次修法「保障性自主」的重要意涵被忽略了。

透過回顧婦女運動倡議強暴法律改革的歷程，及不同行動者、不同框架之間的互動、競逐，本文希望能重新彰顯1999年刑法妨害性自主罪章修法的歷史意義，並為之後強暴法律的改革提供願景。

關鍵字

強暴 ； 構框 ； 性自主 ； 強暴神話 ； 告訴乃論制 ； 二度傷害 ； 性別宰制 ； 婚內強暴

並列摘要

This thesis employs framing theory to review on the history of the reformation of rape lawsand the women’s movement to reevaluate the historical importance of the amended Chapter16 of the Criminal Code in 1999. The question here is: How many different framing approaches have been used to deal with rapes from the post-war period to the late 90’s when the Criminal Code was revised? How do these different framing approachesinteract with one another so as to result in the current regulations of rape in our country?
In the 70’s, the dominant legal discourse examined rape issues in the frame of “Decency Protection,” which could skillfully avoid reviewing on the patriarchy and the possibilities of judicial reformation. At the same time, politicians treated rape issues in a frame of “Social Stability.” Now that rapes would seriously damage social order, they proposed several approaches, including stricter penalties, the cancellation of “No trial without complaint,” and stepped up a crackdown on hooligans. Besides these two major framings, a surge of defining rapes from the feminist perspective also emerged out in the 70’s. Many female writers wrote essays to criticize rapes, and many feminist works being translated into Taiwan at that time. Lu, Xiu-Lian discussed and criticized on the rapes issues which the public forum seldom emphasized by holding seminars, writing essays and establishing a leased line named “Keep You Safe.” Her critiques vaguely presented a new feminist framing about rapes.
Although Lu, Xiu-Lian was sent to jail because of Formosa Event, women’s movement in Taiwan never ceased the critical fire on rape issues. After the establishment of Awakening in 1982, the actors of women’s movement continued to assess rape issues following the vein of Lu’s efforts. Later in 1984, Awakening co-hosted “The Year of Women’s Protection” with other organizations, which symbolized issues of rapes and sexual harassments beganto beon the agenda of women’s movement in Taiwan. Different women organizations attempted to create a framing named “Protection of Sexual Autonomy” to criticize rape issues from a feminist perspective. The efforts that were made by women organizations to fight against rapes can be divided into two dimensions. One is to construct the new criminal image of rapes and deconstruct the rape myths of the dominant legal discourses through the factual surveys. The other is that the women organizations have made great efforts on improving discourses and reformation of the system concerning the unfriendly treatments on those female victims. On the other hand, politicians who adopted the framing of “Social Stability” started advocating the reformation of rape laws during the debates over the legitimatization of Provisional Regulations of Public Security Protection, Mental Health Law, and No.77 “Compulsory Treatment” of Criminal Law. In 1994, the Legislative Yaun approved of the amendment of No. 77 Criminal Law proposed by Pan, Wei-Gang, which symbolized the victory of the framing of “Social Stability” on rape issues. The frames of “Protection of Sexual Autonomy” and “Social Stability” are both a kind of “challenger” frame that desire to change the current situation. However, at that time, the politicians did not pay attention to the criticism on rapes raised by women organizations, and ignored female victims’ protection or even reproduced rape myths in their reformation projects.
In March 1994, Pan Wei-Gang, the legislator, introduced the draft plan of Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act. When women organizations owned the new draft plan designed from the frame of “Protection of Sexual Autonomy”, they can challenge the existing criminal laws better. Different from the frame of “Male Domination” presented in the anti-harassment parade during that period, Pan’s draft plan defined rapes in a frame of “Gender Neutralization” and Pan adopted a neutral legislative mode that diminished sexualdifferences.However, the new frame of“Protection of Sexual Autonomy” was not accepted by those politicians who favored “Decency Protection,” which postponed the whole legislation process. Peng Wen-Ru event in 1996 and many serious crimes happening in the late 90s in Taiwan paved the way to the amendments again. The whole society called for a force to maintain “social stability,” which largely influenced the concrete content of the amendment of Crime Laws in 1998. Under the alliance of “Protection of Sexual Autonomy” and “Social Stability”, Chapter16 of the Criminal Codewas successfully amended in 1999.Many Criminal law scholars criticized the amendment in 1999. When carefully analyzing their remarks, we can observe these negative comments are revival of the old frame of “decency protection.”The importance of “Protection of Sexual Autonomy” was ignored in this amendment when cooperating with the frame of “Social Stability.”
Through the reflections on the process of the reformation of rape law advocated by the women’s movement, and the interactions as well as competitions between different actors and frames, this thesis hopes to represent the historical significance of the amendment of Chapter16 of the Criminal Code in 1999, and supports references for the following reformations of rape laws.

並列關鍵字

rape ； framing ； sexual autonomy ； rape myth ； No trial without complaint ； secondary injury ； male domination ； marital rape

參考文獻

--歷史的轉向：社會科學與歷史敘事的結合，台灣社會學，第10期，2005年。

張蕙蘭，控制性侵害，國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文，2007年。

--新女性何去何從？，拓荒者，1977年。

劉邦繡檢察官，性侵害犯罪防治法之性侵害犯罪新解--以一九九九年修正之刑法妨害性自主罪、妨害風化罪為論述，律師雜誌，第267期，2001年12月。

張錦麗，性侵害犯罪防治法的過去、現在與未來，律師雜誌，第212期，第27-31頁，1997年5月。