論死刑之裁量與界限：以兩公約與比較法為出發

On the Adjudication of Death Penalty and its Limitation in Regard to ICCPR and Comparative Law

2009年12月10日「公民與政治權利國際公約」與「經濟社會文化權利國際公約」透過「兩公約施行法」方式，在我國生效實施以來，對現行刑事實務產生相當影響，其中尤以死刑的裁量最為顯著。除了最高法院開啟死刑言詞辯論程序外，也在歷次判決下，逐漸建立起死刑裁量的初步基準。就其內容，除公政公約第6條的「最嚴重犯罪」概念與正當程序保證要求外，作為未來事實審裁量死刑時，應如何考量的諸般因素，融合到既有量刑理論與基準，也成為一個待檢討問題。本文嘗試觀察現有最高法院判決，並從檢討兩公約與日本實務量刑基準作為出發，就我國死刑仍存續的情況下，結合量刑理論上對各個量刑因子的解釋，在符合兩公約與量刑理論應然要求下，提出可供實務參考與操作的死刑裁量的方法，並探究其界限。

On 10th day of Dec. 2009, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were promulgated in Taiwan by enacting a special implementation Act. This has brought many influences on the Criminal justice system. And the most prominent one of them is regarding to death penalty. The Supreme Court has not only established a formal procedure of argument for sentencing death penalty but also, with made some decisions, announced the primitive criteria under the Article 6 ” right to life” of ICCPR. Among them, there are demands of both the most serious crime, in substance and the guarantee of due process, in procedure. Thereto for a proceeding trial, it is more important that how a court to take all factors into consideration, including the sentencing theory, and then make a proper capital decision. In this article, the author combines not only the decisions made by Supreme Court but also the ICCPR and comparative Japanese practice of sentencing death penalty. He tries to find a practical and applicable way for the court to make a capital decision as well as its limitation under the situation of non-abolition in present Taiwan.