檢察官選擇性起訴之審查──以美國法制析論我國未來規範之面向

Reviewing of Selective Prosecution- A Normative Analysis Towards Taiwanese Law from an American Perspective

近年來我國檢察官關於起訴權之運作及行使飽受濫權或濫訴之批評，檢察官在運作起訴權時，難免遇到外界質疑「選擇性起訴」，尤其是牽涉敏感之政治人物或涉及執政與在野黨派之刑事貪汙或選舉等案件，檢察官之偵查決定往往引發外界不當之猜測及聯想，然上述選擇性起訴之概念及內涵，對我國而言，無論學說及實務尚屬陌生，關於該等理論之概念、定義、適用及效果等，亟待釐清，每當被告或外界提出質疑時，亦無明確標準可供為判斷標準，致使外界對於檢察官之起訴充滿諸多揣測，本文擬引介美國法所採起訴裁量權概念下承認之濫用起訴裁量權之類型即「選擇性起訴」，依據美國法及聯邦最高法院相關判例建立之「選擇性起訴」之判斷認定標準，做為未來我國建立相關法制之立法依據，最後本文認為該濫用起訴權之類型均得適用於我國法制，若此，待修法後將之納入刑事訴訟法，裨使未來法院遇有被告提出相關主張時，不致無從審查之，而檢察官亦不致於此類案件動輒背負濫權濫訴或羅致入罪之罪名，而無法據以反駁，法院遇有此等抗辯時，亦不會遭遇無解決之道。

In recent years, prosecutors in Taiwan have been faced with criticism over the abuse of prosecutorial charging decision. The prosecutors, in exercising charging power, inevitably are scrutinized by society for possible “selective prosecution”, especially in cases that involve political figures and affairs, corruption, or elections, and their decisions are routinely met with skepticism. However, the theory of “selective prosecution” remains an underdeveloped element in Taiwan’s academic circles and legal practice regarding the concept, definition, application and the legal effect of the theory. There is no clear-cut criterion that serves as the judicial review standard by which the problems and issues may be appraised in Taiwan, thus speculation regarding the prosecutions is common. It is the goal of this article to introduce, under the discretionary prosecution system, one of the types of abuse of charging power, i.e. selective prosecution, on a level of accordance with the established standard and norm put forth by the United States Supreme Court, and for the purpose of institutionalizing relevant legal norm in Taiwan. Lastly, this article holds the opinion that this type of abuse of charging power could be applied in the Taiwanese prosecutorial system and incorporated into the criminal procedure as the standard for judicial review of such abuse of charging power. It will not only assist the judiciary in establishing a standard of review, but also will help to prevent the skepticism and speculation of abuses which could tarnish the prosecutorial reputation and its’ unbiased role in exercising her charging power.