性自主法益之研究——以兒童及青少年之性自主為核心

A Legal Study of Sexual Self-Determination: The Interpretations of Legal Interest of Article 227 of the Criminal Code

系所名稱：法律學院法律學研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：101
指導教授：黃榮堅
刑法第227條與兒童性交猥褻罪，是我國近年來頗受社會關注的爭議議題，從社會現象觀察，人們對於「性主體權」的重視，除了生物本能的因素外，更隱含有由社會所建構之性價值觀在內化過程中所影響的個人內心感受，此外，兒童及青少年的性自主權涉及複雜的社會大眾集體心理，使得兒少性領域權利的保護顯得複雜與困難。
1999年我國刑法修正後，妨害性自主罪章從過去保護「善良風俗」的妨害風化罪獨立出來，並確立性自主法益係以保護個人性主體權為核心之個人法益。惟刑法第227條之保護法益是否為性主體權、在體系上是否應置於妨害性自主罪章的問題始終存有爭議，本論文以性自主法益之內涵為出發點，並以兒童與青少年的性自主權作為研究核心，進而論述刑法第227條之法益、規制手段與體系定位等問題。
首先，本文從性學有關「性」的論述來探究性的意義，並指出性在當代的重要性並非僅限於生物學或生殖功能的意義，更隱含諸多社會集體的價值觀透過社會規範與語言所建構的意義；從社會對兒童與青少年抱持「非性的期待」與「性的禁忌」之現象，以及社會規範與社會學習對於個人內在信念之影響，證立社會集體的憂慮情緒可能會在社會化的運作中轉嫁到兒童與青少年的個人心理層面。
其次，分析性刑法法益從整體法益走向個人法益之變遷，並探討性自主之概念內涵：性自主法益的不同定義與理論爭議、性自主在基本權／人權脈絡中所扮演之角色、性自主與自由法益之區辨、妨害性自主罪章所欲保護的共同核心利益及其出發點，進而嘗試建立與抽象道德以及自由法益脈絡脫離的獨立性自主概念。本文對於性自主採較廣義的定義，包含個人內在與外在的性事務處理權，但由於考量個體在社會群體生活中難免會發生性領域活動的互相干預，故透過利益衡量而採取規範性的限縮。
接著本文分析近年來學說上逐漸形成主流的刑法第227條保護法益詮釋見解，亦即所謂「兒童與青少年（不受干擾的）『性發展』、『整體發展』」之內涵。所謂「性發展」之用語可能隱含有兩種概念：其一，是指抽象的人類性發展路線，指引出一條多數人所建構出來的「正確」性生活、性行為態樣與性價值，但事實上刑法無法扮演性教育家的角色，代替人們決定走向主流性價值路線；其二，是指個人型塑自我性領域的發展空間，並參考其他學門對於人類發展的現象觀察，兒少由於在高度性發展階段的不穩定性、以及在社會規範內化所造成的個人性價值與性認同影響下，刑法設置特別保護規定，透過規範來重新合理分配個人在性領域的發展過程中必須承擔的性心理負荷範圍與風險大小。
最後，本文認為所謂性發展概念係佐證性自主侵害強度與持續性、以及性心理負荷過載風險的判斷標準之一，並非刑法獨立之保護法益。並在此一立論基礎之下，比較德國法與我國法相關規定之構成要件設計以及規範體系定位等問題。

The crime of indecent assault against children in Article 227 of the Criminal Code has been a controversial issue of concern to the public in recent years. Observed from the perspective of social phenomenon, in addition to the factor of biological instinct, the public’s attention to “sexual subject rights” also implies the affected personal feelings in the internalized process of sexual values constructed by society. Moreover, the involved complex collective psychology of mass society has made protection for children and adolescents’ right to sexual self-determination more complicated and difficult.
Ever since the amendment to our national Criminal Code in 1999, offenses against sexual self-determination have been independent from the sex offense in "good customs" protection which makes sexual self-determination a core personal legal interest in the protection of personal sexual subject rights. However, there has been controversy over whether the protective legal interest of Article 227 in the Criminal Code belongs to sexual subject rights and should be included among crimes against sexual self-determination. Based on sexual self-determination as a starting point as well as children and adolescents’ sexual self-determination rights as the core of the research, the present paper discusses issues of legal interest, regulatory instruments and system positioning regarding Article 227 of the Criminal Code.
This study first explores the meaning of sex within the discourse of “Sex”, and notes that the importance of sex in contemporary society is not limited only to biological or reproductive functions, but also implies meanings of many social collective values constructed by social norms and language. Observation of the phenomenon of “non-sexual expectations" and "sexual taboos" held by society towards children and adolescents, as well as the influence of social norms and social learning on individual’s internal beliefs leads to the belief that collective social anxiety may be transferred to children and adolescents during the process of socialization.
Secondly, this study carried out an analysis of the change in legal interest in the Criminal Code from the whole to individuals, and explores the concept connotation of sexual self-determination which includes different definitions and theoretical controversies over sexual self-determination legal interests, the role played by sexual self–determination in the context of basic rights/human rights, the distinction between sexual self-determination and freedom legal interest, the common core interest and its starting point which sexual self-determination intends to protect. It then attempts to establish an independent sexual self-determination concept free from the context of abstract moral and legal interests. This article adopts a broader definition of sexual self-determination, including personal internal and external processing rights regarding sexual matters. However, owing to considerations of inevitable mutual interventions of individual sexual fields in social group life, a normative narrowing was then adopted through the measurement of interests.
This study continued to analyze the interpretative views of protective legal interest in Article 227 of the Criminal Code, which has recently gradually become the theoretical mainstream, namely, the connotation of “the (undisturbed) ‘sexual development’ and ‘overall development’ of children and adolescents ". The term "sexual development" may imply two concepts: first, it refers to the “correct” sexual life, behavior and values created by a majority of people under the guidance of an abstract human sexual development path; however, in practice, the Criminal Code is unable to replace the role of sexual educators in determining people’s movement towards mainstream sexual values. Second, it refers to the developmental space of individual self-shaping field of space with reference to other disciplines on human development phenomenon observation. In view of the instability during the highly sexual development stage as well as under the influence of individual sex value and sexual recognition caused within the social norms of children and adolescents, the Criminal Code specially set up protection provisions to reallocate rationally through regulations the psychological load range and risk scale that the individual should bear in the developmental process of the sexual field.
Finally, the present paper suggests that the so-called sexual development concept is one of corroborating evidence for criteria in judging the strength of harassment, persistence as well as psychological overloading of sexual self-determination, rather than the independent protective legal interest in the Criminal Code. Based on such a theoretical foundation, this study further conducts a comparison for relevant constituent element designs and norm systemic positions between German laws and our own.