臺灣死刑制度之回顧與展望

The Retrospective and Prospective Views of Taiwan Death Penalty

臺灣近年來，隨著政府朝著廢除死刑政策及人權團體的努力下，目前死刑的趨勢則有朝向減少死刑之規定、限制死刑之適用對象、嚴謹死刑之執行程序以及避免死刑的實際執行的方向而行。況且隨著人類文明的進步，世界各國刑事立法趨勢，似有逐漸廢止或減少死刑立法之勢。面對此趨勢，縱使臺灣目前之客觀環境，尚難全面廢止死刑，死刑現行在臺灣仍是「社會控制的必要之惡」，惟依現行世界各國刑事立法趨勢及對人權的保障，仍須將廢止死刑列為台灣刑事政策上之長遠目標。現階段則宜在刑事立法上，儘量緊縮科處死刑之罪名，司法實務上應儘量能營造出不任意宣判死刑及謹慎執行死刑氣氛，以減少暴虐之氣，但也不能濫用具有教化可能，作為不判死的理由，仍需以罪刑均衡為首要判斷基準。最後，縱使臺灣長期而言要朝向廢止死刑而行，仍須思考以何種制度來代替死刑，而能創造出一套「不需要死刑，而有死刑效果」的完善制度，以符合人權及刑事政策之需要。就目前而言，與其濫用教化可能做為不判死的理由，或許是可以考慮採行死緩制度，觀察之後再決定有無教化可能再決定是否執行死刑。

Recently, following Taiwan's attitude towards banishing the death penalty and efforts by human rights group, the current trend for the death penalty directs at reducing regulations for the death penalty, limiting the suitable objects for the death penalty, implementing strict procedures for the death penalty, and avoiding practical implementation of the death penalty. With the advance of human civilization, international death penalty trends seem to gradually banish or reduce the death penalty. Facing this trend, even though it is difficult to banish the death penalty comprehensively in current objective Taiwan's environment, the death penalty is still Taiwan's “necessary evil of social control.” In light of the current criminal legislative trend worldwide and protection of human rights, Taiwan still has to list banishing the death penalty as one of long-term criminal polices. At present stage, in criminal legislation, it is appropriate to reduce crimes which can be sentenced to death to the greatest extent; in judicial practice, it should construct an atmosphere full of not arbitrarily to sentence criminals to death and meticulous implementation of the death penalty. All of them aim at reducing cruel atmosphere. However, judges cannot abuse the possibility of corrections but not sentence criminals to death. The balance of crime and punishment is their foremost judgment criteria. Finally, even though Taiwan lists banishing the death penalty in the long-term criminal policy, it should be considered to use what kind of system to replace the death penalty. That can create a perfect system “which has the no death penalty, but it has deterrent effect of the death penalty”, which meets the needs of human rights and criminal policy. At present, rather than abusing the possibility of corrections, it may consider adopting the death penalty with reprieve. After observing, prison authorities decide whether criminals have the possibility of corrections, they then can make decisions to implement the death penalty or not.