死刑制裁之政策分析

Policy Analyses of Death Penalty

系所名稱：中國與亞太區域研究所 學位別：博士 畢業學年：107年 指導教授：徐正戎 死刑之存廢爭議牽涉道德、倫理、正義、良心、宗教信仰、社會文化等層面，眾人不容分說將這些原本深藏內心之信念或價值交相混雜，往往陷於「殺人償命天經地義」與「生命神聖不容侵犯」兩面之間游移不決，如此尖銳之對立思考也挑動正反雙方支持者的敏感神經，動輒引起社會紛擾而成為法界之棘手難題，由來已久。清原正本之道，則唯有重新審視國家有無正當性得以刑罰手段剝奪生命，如所周知傳統刑律堂而皇之對外宣稱，死刑充當除暴安良之利器有其淵遠流長的歷史，迄今世界諸國卻因國情不同而有立法殊異，各吹各調。然而憲法被奉為人民權利之保障書豈能以耳為目，反倒更要小心翼翼加以嚴格把關，放眼公權力對個人自由之侵害莫此為甚，無論如何沒有法律評價的模糊空間。有鑑於此，本文採由基本權保障之觀點出發，歷經學理分析找出刑罰本身之規範機能所在，繼而指明死刑之雙重約制繫於應然面先已窮盡罪刑均衡，從中層層設限乃至教人伏誅自我擔保不越雷池一步，以求刑期無刑付諸實現（法定刑）；實然面則對受刑人採行責罰相當寄予復歸社會之更生期待，其間佐以極刑用來喚起自我反思人生意義（宣告刑），怎奈他律無法完全取代自律，遇有執迷不化之凶殺暴徒，只好哀憫勉予成全個人主觀之道德決斷，在此保留某種以死明志的達意機會（執行刑）。以上所舉從事前立牌警告過渡至無害隔離之善後處置，刑罰執守公正應報兵分兩路拉起法益保護的防線，沿途所見死刑之功能角色固可分段切割開來，各司其職，然而全神貫注直接以行為人當作發話對象，將之視為理性自律的道德主體開誠相待，則始終如一。其餘諸如贖罪、溝通、事後修補乃至法秩序回復承平狀態等，通通算不上是死刑本身非得達成不可之預設功效，充其量只能說是嚴正制裁反射作用所形成的偶發結果。再過來套用比例原則多加確認死刑能否通過合憲檢驗，實不相瞞，至若秉諸維護人性尊嚴與尊重人格自由發展，進一步抽絲剝繭探求生命權內蘊之憲法價值，並對於被害人、加害人與公眾安全等各方利益相互權衡，到頭來死刑被視為生命終結不可或缺之法律選項，也是在所難免。文末則將整理研究發現並予歸納化為解題線索，據以導出立法政策之操作取向，可供參酌。

The origin of constant disputes caused by the issue of capital punishment can be traced back to years ago. The dispute is about whether governments have legitimacy to take life away by sanctions. Death penalty is without a doubt the highest violation of personal freedom by public power. Therefore, there is no room for vagueness. This article will start from the perspective of fundamental rights covered by the Constitution, exploring the default function of public power through academic analysis. The fact that balance between crime and punishment has been thoroughly considered by the double coercion upon capital punishment due to its binding by an “ought (general prevention)”, which set un-crossable limitations to thus fulfill the purpose of the sanction, will be specified. In terms of “is (special prevention)”, the principle of such balance is expected to allow sentenced person to return to society. The cases of capital punishment will serve as supplements for other sentenced persons to reflect the meaning of life, in the hope of no one will dare to commit a crime again. Yet, it’s unfortunate that autonomy could not be replaced by heteronomy completely, and the punished are still unrepentant, which leads to the only way to fulfill their wish: death. Finally, principle of proportionality is taken to further confirm whether capital punishment is going too far or not. To be honest, if human dignity and free development of personalities are to be maintained and fulfilled, the rights of life are to be understood within the value of constitution, and equity as well as interests between victims, offenders, and public safety, etc. are to be considered, eventually it is inevitable to deem capital punishment a necessary legal option for ending one’s life.