入無人之境─司法通譯跨欄的文化

To no man’s land ─ the crossover culture of judiciary interpreters

張立姍(Li-Hsien Chang)

指導教授 ： 王皇玉

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.02479

摘要

本篇論文以刑事訴訟程序的通譯制度為核心展開論述，企圖處理以下兩個議題：首先，提出改善百廢待舉的現制之道；以及，析論通譯代言角色背後隱藏的社會整合機能。
目前，我國的司法通譯，無論在教育培訓或法律規範層次，都停留在呀呀學語的階段。暫且不論技術與人材方面的問題，於法律實務上，最根本的困難是：執法者對「被告或證人因語言障礙而未能實質參與程序」這個問題的鈍感，從一開始就揠滅了啟動通譯服務的可能。並且，實務上也沒有鑑別「通曉國語與否」的標準流程規章供執法者參照與遵循，種種漠視致使司法通譯長期立於法學的荒煙漫草之境。
因此，本文援引歐洲、美國及日本三地的文獻，整合出以下三個提昇現制的建議：首先，法官和檢察官於鑑別被告或證人之語言能力時，不宜單憑一己察顏觀色的直覺即斷定之，應依語言學家編定的指導步驟操作。其次，為達成實質辯護，法扶基金會提供辯護人時，對不通國語的被告，應同時配置通譯。最後，凡經通譯參與的審判，均有必要全程錄音錄影，完整保留待譯者與通譯所表達的訊息；如此一來，若對通譯正確與否產生爭端時，始有素材供鑑定評判。
此外，透過延伸應用社會心理學領域對言談中所夾帶社會線索的研究成果，本文觀察到司法通譯的代言角色，在社會整合機制上扮演著關鍵的樞鈕。透過其巧妙地變換口譯的風格，即可策略性地操縱各訴訟參與者的態度與反應。甚至，這份效應還可能再進一步擴大漣漪，影響訴訟外的社會成員。在決定排拒或整併的過程中，同時也鞏固了各社群間凝聚的向心力。
無論如何，本文期許台灣在多元文化的豐富度日益增彩的未來，能夠更加充實通譯制度以因應日漸高漲的需求，進而在兼容並緒的前提下，共存共榮。

關鍵字

司法通譯 ； 訴訟權保障 ； 代言 ； 社會整合

並列摘要

My thesis focuses on the judicial interpretation in criminal trials which involve aboriginal and foreign defendants. There are two main purpose of my thesis. First is to introduce methods for improving the system. The second one is to analyze the meaning of social control and the basic human drive behind the system.
In Taiwan, there are only rough ideas about judicial interpreter. There is almost none of qualified judicial interpreter, neither the educational or certification institution. Except all the technique difficulty, the bigger and fundamental problem is how to decide whether the defendant or the witness needs the legal interpreter? Usually the decision is made by the Judge or the prosecutor, though they may not have the professional knowledge of linguistics. And there is no clear criterion or standard operating procedure for them to follow with.
Therefore, in connection with my first purpose, I referred the legal interpretation institutions in America, European Human Right Court and Japan by reading academic and positivistic research papers. And I proposed three suggestions to reform the system. First one, Judges or the prosecutors should determine the language ability of defendant or witness by following the guidebook edited by linguists. Second one, for the purpose of substantial defense in due process, once the defendant or witness shows inefficiency of Chinese language, they are entitled of free interpreters’ service. The forum of legal aid should offer free interpreters to limited language ability defendant at the same time they provide counselors. And the last one, the trial should be recorded by video thoroughly to save both versions of testimonies of defendants and interpreters. And if there are argues about the accuracy of interpreters testimony, besides confronting on the spot, it’s practical to determine the evidentiary effect by other qualified interpreters’ examination.
With regard to my second purpose, I considered deeply about the function and effect of the legal interpretation in social controlling mechanism. As we all know, when the accused be classified according to their nationality, the accused are marked as the outsider at the same time. By noticing their cultural difference from the native society, the nationals might rethink their own cultural and absorb the foreign cultural factors into original society. Or they might make a native judgment and exclude the foreigner without hesitation.
In any event, they both are the process of social integration. And I would like to discover and discuss the role and effect of the legal interpreter in the interaction of native judge (including jury)、the prosecutor and the foreigner accused. I adopted deconstructive and social psychological approach to observe relevant papers and to derive my statement.

並列關鍵字

judiciary interpreter ； fair trial and due process ； agent ； social integrity

參考文獻

李佳玟（2008）。鑑定報告與傳聞例外─最高法院近年相關裁判之評釋，政大法學評論第101期，頁193-254。

王皇玉（2007）。文化衝突與台灣原住民犯罪困境之探討，國立臺灣大學法學論叢第36卷第3期，頁255-304。

林渭富。雞同鴨講：理與力爭。摘自財團法人民間司法改革基金會網站，http://www.jrf.org.tw/mag/mag_02s.asp?SN=1589。（最後瀏覽日：2010/06/30）

陳宜倩。語言霸權主義下的失衡公義。摘自財團法人民間司法改革基金會網站，http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/Layer2/publishing_1.asp?id=772。（最後瀏覽日：2010/06/30）

鄭家捷、戴羽君。理論篇－法庭通譯的功能與定義。摘自財團法人民間司法改革基金會網站，http://www.jrf.org.tw/mag/mag_02s.asp?SN=1590。（最後瀏覽日：2010/06/30）