我國設立「司法錯案研究中心」可行性之研究

A Study on the Feasibility of Establishing the Judicial Misjudgment Research Center in Taiwan

司改國是會議決議：「為防止司法誤判，了解誤判因素，建請司法院、法務部建立司法錯案研究中心，分析經定讞後救濟改判無罪及經檢察官起訴後獲判無罪確定之案件，研究誤判原因，避免冤獄。」未來無論由司法院、法務部或其所屬機關設立司法錯案研究中心，或者還有其他的制度選項，必然應充實一定之人力、物力，並重新規劃相關之組織編制，此均屬長期計畫，應審慎以對，因認在設立之前，宜參考其他國家已經實施有關司法冤錯案研究及救濟之制度，相關之組織、編制、預算規模、及功能為何，以及與我國現行司法訴訟制度之意義與功能，進行比較分析並提出建議，以作為我國設立「司法錯案研究中心」可行性之參考。基此，本研究計畫欲達以下目的：其一、蒐集並比較分析其他實施有關司法錯案研究國家之組織、編制、預算規模及功能為何；其二、將上開國家所行制度，與我國現行司法訴訟制度之意義與功能等項，進行比較分析；其三、梳理我國錯案的發生成因與現有的糾錯機制，並與研究調查結果進行整合分析，以及提出具體建議，以作為我國設立「司法錯案研究中心」可行性之參考。研究結果發現，就司法錯案的成因，本研究就文獻回顧與實證研究顯示：偵查程序上的瑕疵是造成錯案發生的主要原因，從警方的違法取供與誘導指認到後端法官依照瑕疵證據進行判決等，每個環節均係環環相扣，任何一個程序出錯就會大大提高司法錯案發生的機率。此外，司法體系系統性的缺失也是導致錯案發生的另一原因。此外，判決書製作文化使得法官對於證據證明力不足之補強證據，為了充實判決書內容，可能會恣意進行主觀上之連結，而導致錯案的發生。其次，研究發現，我國現行制度，無法達到司法錯案救濟，主要的原因在於，我國關於冤案救濟之制度其開啟程序不易，錯案成因非單一而應視具體個案合併適用再審或非常上訴的程序，毋需分割。針對此點，焦點座談會則以增加外部力量、增設額外救濟機制作為改進方向，認為應設具體專責機關負責冤案救濟。量化結果顯示，就刑事訴訟程序中各個角色間的主張來看，人民對於被告之主張普遍較為不信任，未來有設立定罪後審查機制之可能時，應降低被告主張本身所受到之預斷，方得獲得較為公正之定罪後審查機制；其次，人民對於司法官之信賴以及嚴格審視之標準，因此為了實質上改善人民對於司法之不信任感，未來定罪後審查機制之建構似乎應建構一個內部自我調整之功能，使得司法官在此部分之疏漏降低，方可獲得改善人民對於司法不信任感。最後，在結論上，針對司法救濟機制，針對提起權人，不應特別限縮，而本身應定位為屬司法權之救濟機制；而有些複雜且具有政治色彩的案件，或者是審理已久，牽涉眾多的人事物之貪污案件，為了有效且終局解決紛爭，應賦予總統特赦的權力。同時，應提供事實與法律救濟合一之可能模式。在政策建議上：立即可行之政策為強化法治教育以及司法人員的人權意識，另外，判決書的簡化也勢在必行；近程可規劃，強化高檢署針對有可能的「錯案」之審查功能以及監察院人權委員會的功能。終極的目標，為了有效降低「司法錯案」的可能性，成立一個體制外救濟機制，似乎是可以思考的方向，成立類似英國的「刑事審查委員會」。具體的作法，可將現行設立在高檢署的「辦理有罪案件審查小組」，參考國外作法，轉換成我國的「刑事案件研究中心」，作為未來司法爭議性案件的教濟機制。

As the conclusion of the National Conference on Judicial Reform wrote,“In order to prevent judicial misjudgment and understand the factors of misjudgment, it is recommended that the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice establish a judicial misjudgment research center to analyze cases that have been determined to provide relief and converted to innocence and prosecutors have been prosecuted. To study the reasons for misjudgment and avoid unjustified prison.” In the future, whether the Judicial Yuan, the Ministry of Justice, or its affiliated agencies establish a judicial error research center, or other system options, certain human and material resources must be enriched, and the relevant organization and establishment must be re-planned. This is a long-term plan. You should be cautious. Before the establishment, it is advisable to refer to the systems that have been implemented in other countries regarding the research and relief of judicial unjust cases, the relevant organization, establishment, budget scale, and functions, as well as the significance and significance of the current judicial litigation system in Taiwan. Functions, comparative analysis and suggestions are made to serve as a reference for the feasibility of establishing a“Judicial Misjudged Research Center”in Taiwan. Based on this, this research plan intends to achieve the following objectives: First, to collect and compare and analyze the organization, compilation, budget scale and functions of other countries that carry out research on judicial misconduct; Second, to develop the system of the country and compare with China The meaning and function of the current judicial litigation system are compared and analyzed; third, the causes of wrong cases in our country and the existing error correction mechanism are analyzed, and the research and investigation results are integrated and analyzed, and specific suggestions are made as China’s establishment Reference to the feasibility of“Judicial Misjudged Research Center”. The results of the study found that regarding the causes of judicial misjudged cases, this research based on literature review and empirical research shows that flaws in the investigation procedure are the main cause of misjudged cases, from the illegal collection of confessions by the police and inducing identification to the back-end judges in accordance with the flawed evidence. Judgments, etc., each link is interlocked, and any mistake in the procedure will greatly increase the probability of judicial misjudgments. In addition, the lack of a systematic judicial system is another cause of wrongful cases. In addition, the culture of judgment making makes judges have insufficient evidence to reinforce evidence. In order to enrich the content of the judgment, they may arbitrarily link subjectively, leading to wrong cases. Second, the study found that China’s current system cannot achieve judicial remedies for wrongful cases. The main reason is that it is not easy to start the remedy system for unjust cases. The cause of wrongful cases is not a single cause. The retrial or extraordinary appeal procedures should be combined depending on the specific case. Need to be divided. In response to this point, the focus symposium focused on increasing external forces and adding additional relief mechanisms as the direction of improvement, and believed that a specific agency should be set up to be responsible for the relief of unjust cases. The quantitative results show that the people generally distrust the defendant’s claims from the perspective of the various roles in the criminal procedure. When it is possible to establish a post-conviction review mechanism in the future, the defendant’s claims should be reduced in advance. Obtain a fairer post-conviction review mechanism; secondly, the people’s trust in the judicial officer and strict review standards. Therefore, in order to substantially increase the people's distrust of the justice, the construction of the future post-conviction review mechanism seems to be an internal self-adjustment This function can reduce the judicial officials’omissions in this part, so as to improve the people’s mistrust of justice. Finally, in terms of research recommendations, the judicial remedy mechanism should not be particularly limited to the right holder, and it should be positioned as a judicial remedy mechanism; and some complex and politically colored cases may be heard. For a long time, corruption cases involving many people and affairs, in order to effectively and finally resolve disputes, the president should be given the power of amnesty. At the same time, it should provide a possible mode of integration of facts and legal remedies. In terms of policy recommendations: the main policy is to strengthen the rule of law education and the human rights awareness of judicial personnel. In addition, the simplification of judgments is also imperative; short-term planning can be made to strengthen the High Prosecutor’s Office’s review of possible“wrong cases”Functions and the functions of the Human Rights Committee of the Supervisory Court. The ultimate goal, in order to effectively reduce the possibility of“judicial wrongdoing”, seems to be a way to think about setting up an extra-system relief mechanism, and the establishment of a“criminal review committee”similar to the United Kingdom. The specific approach can be to convert the current“criminal case review team”established in the High Prosecutor’s Office into my country’s“criminal case review center”with reference to foreign practices, which will serve as a financial mechanism for future judicial controversial cases.