政治審判與「正義的胚芽」──從法治原則重新檢視美麗島審判

Political Trial and the Germ-of-Justice Thesis

政治審判是否可能符合法治原則？本文探討分析法實證主義者哈特（H. L. A. Hart）所提出的「正義胚芽」命題（the germ-of-justice thesis），以及牛津大學法理學家Leslie Green對該命題的檢討與修正。透過法哲學上有關法治、道德與邪惡體制的討論，檢驗美麗島大審是否符合最低限度的法治，進而是否可能蘊含「正義的胚芽」。本文認為在美麗島審判的偵訊、庭審過程中，就美麗島事件的事實建構、處理被告自白的方法、以及對刑法第100條內亂罪的解釋違反了諸多「法內在道德」的要求。更因為法院的裁判活動已經受到外於法律系統的政治干擾，即便是公開審理、一體適用規則，也不可能萌生正義的胚芽。然而，在雙方競逐論述的辯證過程中，被告以此審判為劇場，告訴臺灣民眾政治競爭和言論自由的重要性。因此，美麗島審判重要的影響不在於法庭上關於訴訟程序的論辯，而在於其政治論述的開展。

The article reexamines the political trial of Formosa Incident, which took place in 1980, through the lens of H.L.A. Hart’s germ-of-justice thesis. The linkage between law and justice is the adjudication process of courts. If the court may constantly apply the same rule to the same kind of cases, the rule application may be regarded as the germ of justice, regardless the substance of the rule. After examining the court’s performance in the Formosan Incident trial, the article points out several deficits of the rule of law not only procedurally but also substantively. It concludes that the Formosan Incident trial cannot satisfy the basic requirement of fair procedure, which leads to non-germ of justice. However, political statements delivered publicly by defendants in the courtroom have sent strong message of democracy to the general public. This is the expressive function of a political trial reversely performed by political dissidents.