從歐洲人權法院相關判決探討我國受刑人之投票爭議

Examining the Dispute over Prisoners’Voting Rights in Light of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Hirst (No. 2) and Its Subsequent Response

歐洲人權法院在2005年10月6日Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2)首次針對限制受刑人投票權爭議之指標性案件中為判決，指出英國人民代表法第3條（Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983)）全面性地剝奪受刑人投票權規定違反歐洲人權公約第一議定書第3條規定之自由選舉權，自此展開一連串英國與歐洲人權法院之間對抗、妥協與對話。本文藉由英國與歐洲人權法院之間之對話與論辯反思我國因法律制度之欠缺，導致「實質上」剝奪受刑人之投票權之合憲性。
本文主張我國目前現行法並未限制或剝奪罪犯投票權之規定，透過「戶籍所在地」此種中立、客觀標準來規制和管理投票權之行使方式，成為一種國家「製造（理想）公民圖像」的機制。現行「在籍投票」之規定，加上未就受刑人行使投票權為規定之規範不足之狀態，導致實質剝奪受刑人行使投票權，將其排除於政治共同體之外，即國家透過此一法律技術區分我者與他者，策略且巧妙地「移動國家邊界」（shifting border），將其排除於政治共同體之外。因立法和行政不作為而導致使受刑人受憲法保障的投票權受到完全剝奪，明顯無法通過憲政法治國家所要求的比例原則等基本原則之檢驗。

For the first time, the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2) has tackled the issue of prisoners’voting rights and ruled that a complete ban on prisoners’voting rights as stated in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983) was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of ECHR. Since then, confrontations, compromises and dialogues between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights have begun. This article explores the constitutionality of the“substantial”deprivation of prisoners’voting rights due to the absence of legislation in Taiwan by reference to the debates and dialogues between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights.
This article argues that while prisoners in Taiwan are not explicitly prohibited from voting, the impartial standard of household registration used to govern voting rights has inadvertently become a means of constructing an“ideal”citizen. The existing voting system based on the place of domicile, along with the absence of laws regarding prisoners’voting rights lead to exclude prisoners from the electoral process. The use of legal tactics used by country subtly shift borders and exclude them from the political community. The failure of legislative action and administrative omission has resulted in the complete deprivation of prisoners’voting rights, which fails to pass the test of principle of proportionality required by the Constitution.