透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.201.16.34
  • 學位論文

從基本權保障之角度檢視我國DNA採樣之法規範-以刑事程序中之強制採樣為核心

Examining DNA Sampling Laws in Taiwan from the Perspective of Fundamental Rights Protection:Focus on Compulsory Sampling in Criminal Procedure

指導教授 : 陳仲嶙 謝煜偉
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


隨著DNA科技之精進,DNA證據除了提供犯罪偵查之重要線索,更經常是刑事程序中將被告定罪之關鍵證據。我國刑事訴訟法及去氧核醣核酸採樣條例(下稱DNA條例)均有DNA強制採樣之規定,DNA條例並甫於民國101年1月間修正公布,然經重新檢視相關法規範後,發現實有對憲法所保障之基本權造成不當干預之情形,故藉本文提出自己之意見。 DNA強制採樣係檢查身體處分之一種,具有強制處分之性質,且屬於「證據取得」之範疇,與鑑定、勘驗等係「證據調查」之方式有所不同。DNA強制採樣可能侵害之基本權,包括憲法第8條第1項所揭櫫之人身自由權,其次就是身體權,亦即確保身體完整性之權利。再者,因DNA具有高度識別性,且其上載有豐富的遺傳資訊,因此與隱私權之保障也會形成衝突。是以,本文認為對於相關法規範之檢視,自應以嚴格之違憲審查標準為基準。 而刑事訴訟法與DNA條例係兩套不同的強制採樣制度,彼此間應無「特別法與普通法」,或是「新法與舊法」之關係,蓋前者之立法目的乃是個案偵辦中為求調查犯罪情形而對特定人進行強制採樣;後者之立法目的則是為了建立DNA資料庫。而現行刑事訴訟法關於強制採樣之要件規範不夠明確,發動處分之決定機關未採法官保留原則,亦乏使用完畢後銷毀樣本及紀錄之規定,且是否應輸入DNA資料庫建檔,亦無明文規範,致生爭議。再者,DNA條例所規範應接受強制採樣之範圍,無法與建立DNA資料庫的目的密切結合,而該條例所規範法院或檢察官通知特定人進行DNA採樣之要件,相較於司法警察通知特定人進行採樣之要件卻更為嚴格,實有輕重失衡之嫌。此外,建立DNA資料庫之目的主要是供未來可能開啟之訴訟程序使用,由於不確定性甚高,其要件當然應更加嚴謹才是。從而,本文認為,對人民為DNA強制採樣,不論是依刑事訴訟法或DNA條例,都應改採法官保留原則,且在採樣範圍、程序及採樣後之分析、使用與保存等各方面,都應該有更充足及完善的規範,俾符合憲法比例原則之旨。

並列摘要


With the advancement of DNA science and technology, DNA evidence in addition to providing important clues to criminal investigation, the more often is the key evidence in the criminal procedure the accused convicted. Both there are provisions on DNA compulsory sampling in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the DNA Sampling Act , the latter is just amened in January 2012, but relevant norms had caused undue interference with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. DNA compulsory sampling is a kind of bodily investigation,which is a judicial compulsory measure, and belongs to the scope of "evidence obtaining" ,not " evidence investigating". DNA compulsory sampling may infringe upon the fundamental rights, including the right of personal liberty as enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution.The second is body right, that is the right of bodily integrity. Furthermore, because DNA is highly recognizable, and on which contain much genetic information,so will thus conflict with the right of privacy. Therefore, the constitutional review should adopt strict standards . The Code of Criminal Procedure and the DNA Sampling Act are two different systems of DNA compulsory sampling , with each other should be no relationship of "special law and general law" or " new law and old law." The legislative purpose of the former is to investigate crimes for specific cases; the legislative purpose of the latter is to establish the DNA database . The current provisions on DNA compulsory sampling in the Code of Criminal Procedure are not definite enough, nor adopt the judge retained principle, and also lack the norms about destruction of the samples and records. There are no clear guidelines whether the records should be enter into the DNA database or not.Furthermore,the range of DNA compulsory sampling regulated by the DNA Sampling Act is unable to meet the legislative purpose closely.Since the main purpose of compulsory sampling regulated by the DNA Sampling Act is to prevent possible future crime, due to the uncertainty is very high, more rigorous requirements is necessary. Thus, DNA compulsory sampling ,whether according to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the DNA Sampling Act , should shift to adopt the judge retained principle, and in all aspects of the sampling range,sampling procedure,samples analysis,records use and preservation,etc.,should have more adequate and complete specifications, to comply with the constitutional principle of proportionality.

參考文獻


7.涂偉俊(2011)。《論刑事程序中DNA之採樣、分析及留存-以歐洲人權法院
8.林鈺雄(2013)。《刑事訴訟法(上)》,7版。臺北:自刊。
14.黃朝義(2009)。《刑事訴訟法》。臺北:新學林。
16.蔡墩銘(1999)。《刑事證據法》。臺北:五南。
10.陳筱屏(2005)。《對被告侵犯性之身體檢查》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所

延伸閱讀