2021年刑事立法與實務發展回顧：以治安與治療為名

Developments in the Criminal Law in 2021: In the Name of Public Security and Treatment

本文以2021年刑事立法及實務見解為論述對象，整理去年度當中，具有代表性或批判意義的修法條文、最高法院判決、大法庭裁定以及大法官解釋，並分析這些立法內容與實務見解中所關心的議題取向和重要的發展脈絡。在刑事立法的部分，本文發現主政者仍習慣於追求以刑事立法回應因社會矚目案件所引發的民怨，交通事故危險的領域尤甚。然倉促躁進的立法反而會形成更多解釋適用上的實務難題，值得主管機關及立法者深思。如何藉由修法諮詢方式的革新實質提升立法的細緻度及周詳度，是接下來政府應重視的問題。其次，就實務判解的部分，針對社會抗爭運動能否阻卻違法，以及象徵性言論的違法評價，最高法院判決具有影響深遠的意義。大法庭制度運作以來，確實有效發揮統一法律見解的作用，並且藉由大法庭的場域促進實務與學術的實質交流，值得肯定。最後，也是最重要的，司法院大法官解釋針對以改善矯治為目的的保安處分提出所謂「明顯區隔原則」概念，具體處理保安處分中有關強制治療與強制工作的合憲性議題，意味深遠。但明顯區隔原則的操作也可能潛藏著架空刑法基本原則的疑慮，以治療為名義的人身拘束處分可能帶有更嚴重的違憲問題，值得我們後續關注。

This article analyzes the major issues and important developments in the content of the legislation and interpretations of the criminal law in 2021.First, in the case of criminal legislation, this article reviews the amendments to the offense of interference with public order, negligent homicide, aggravated sexual assault, and hit-and-run, and makes critical suggestions for each. It can be observed that in recent years, legislators still prefer to respond to public grievances arising from social incidents with punitive legislation, especially in the area of traffic accidents. However, the absence of well-thought-out criminal legislation may lead to more difficulties of application in the future, which is worthy of deep consideration by the legislators. We should consider strengthening the integrity and sophistication of the criminal legislation process in the future. Second, with regard to the court's decision, the Supreme Court, recognizing “right to resist” and “right to avert imminent national hazard”, made an important judgment that strongly states social and political protest or symbolic speech which is often accompanied by violence will not be illegal as long as it meets the applicable conditions. The Joint Senate for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court has effectively served to unify different legal opinions. The Joint Senate indeed plays an important role in resolving of conflicting interpretations. Finally, and most importantly, J.Y. Interpretation No. 799, which is ruling on compulsory treatment for sexual assault crime offenders, puts forward “principle of clear separation” for the first time. This principle also appears in J.Y. Interpretation No. 812, which rules that the order of compulsory labor in penal code is unconstitutional. Both interpretations declare ambitious institutional goals and core concepts of criminal treatment, and deserve recognition. However, we should be noticed that the huge gap between ideal and status quo may also be suspected of overriding basic principles of criminal justice. It may be a more serious constitutional issue that deserves our attention when social exclusion and isolation happens in the name of treatment.