鑑識人員與被害人對於DNA證據之評價研究：以嘉義市政府警察局為例

The Evaluation Over DNA Evidence by Forensic Officers and Victims－An Example of The Police Station in Chiayi City

本研究在探討鑑識人員以及被害人對於刑案現場DNA 證據之評價，本文兼採文獻研究及質性研究，來探討鑑識人員與被害人分別對於DNA 證據之證據能力、證據力、DNA 證據以及DNA 資料庫之評價，其中文獻研究係將與本議題相關之書籍、期刊與論文收集與整理，期待能站在巨人的肩膀上面能看的更遠，做更進一步的研究；另質性研究部分乃對於嘉義市政府警察局內實際從事刑事鑑識工作之現場採證人員以立意取樣4名，以及嘉義市轄區之竊盜案件被害人3名來進行訪談，了解渠等對於DNA 證據之評價，研究發現如下：一、嘉義市轄區之刑事案件以竊盜與車禍案件為大宗，於刑案現場採集證據於刑案現場的採集日益困難，惟鑑識人員對於DNA 證據普遍認為具備證據能力。二、刑事鑑識人員認可DNA 證據之證據能力，故贊成DNA 證據運用於刑案現場，惟刑事鑑識人員採集刑案現場之DNA 證據需要靠經驗的累積。三、刑事鑑識人員普遍贊成DNA 資料庫之建置，對於資料庫內建檔資料普遍贊同應該要擴大建檔，其擴大建檔之對象應該包含再犯率高之犯罪；且多數刑事鑑人員認為犯罪嫌疑人在偵查中做DNA 建檔較為適宜，因在法律倫理上較有法源依據。四、嘉義市轄區之被害人以竊盜案件為大宗，其中部分竊盜案件發生於公眾場合，係屬不特定多數人可以接觸之場所，故採集到之DNA 證據之證據力有待商確。五、被害人普遍贊成DNA 證據運用於刑案現場，認為DNA 證據具備有證據能力。六、被害人普遍贊成DNA 資料庫之建置，且多數認為可以對於全民DNA 資料庫建檔，少數認為應對再犯率高之犯罪DNA資料庫建檔；於建檔時機部分多數認為判決確定後較有法律依據。

This study was designed to investigate the evaluation of DNA evidence made by forensic officers and victims, including the function of DNA evidence and its database. It used both literature research and qualitative interviews to discuss the evaluation made by forensic officers and victims about admissibility of the evidence, probative value of the evidence, DNA evidence and DNA database. Also, literature research is adopted through collecting books and reading, as well as journal papers and essays drafting related to this issue, hoping that we could stand upon the shoulders of giants and do further research. Researchers used qualitative research according to The Code of Criminal Procedure and picked up four forensic officers and three victims of theft cases randomly in order to understand the assessment of DNA evidence. The research was found the following points: A) Criminal cases in chiayi city are mostly about theft and car accidents. Since it's difficult to collect evidence (including DNA evidence) in such a crime scene, the forensic officers generally considered that DNA evidence has the proof value to justify a case. B) Forensic officers generally in favor of using DNA evidence in a crime scene as it has the proof value to justify a case, but collecting DNA evidence in a crime scene needs to rely on years of experiences. C) Forensic officers generally approved of building up DNA database and extending its archives which included recidivists' data; most officers thought it's more appropriate to file the information of suspects during the investigation since it was more concrete according to legal ethics. D) Theft is the most common crime cases in Chiayi City; some of it occurred in public places where they couldn’t specify any targets so the collected DNA evidence was debatable. E) The victims generally agree using DNA evidence in a crime scene because it can justify a case. F) Victims generally in favor of building upDNA database. Most of them suggested this could be a nationwide archive and the others thought it should archive DNA evidence of those recidivists. As to when to build up DNA database, most people thought it should wait until the final legal decision is made.