判死，以兒童之名？──從兒童權利公約觀點評李宏基死刑案

Killing in the Name of Children?: A CRC Viewpoint of the Case of Li Hung-chi

近年來，多起弒童案件的發生以及充滿嚴罰之社會氛圍下，除有持兒童權利公約主張弒童嚴罰、唯一死刑的修法聲浪外，在若干司法裁判中，兒童權利公約就生命權之保障規定甚至成為法院判處弒童個案被告死刑之判決理由論述，而李宏基死刑案即為一例。惟於兒童權利公約脈絡，兒童生命權議題所指向的保障均是偏向國家義務課予且通常是前端式、預防性質的保護，此與犯罪發生後對於加害者科處如何的刑罰（對弒童被告判處死刑）乃屬二回事，且科處加害者死刑以保障兒童生命權之論述，亦與公民與政治權利國際公約第6條明確指向往廢除死刑一途邁進之情況兩者間應採取一致性解釋之基本立場有所違背，此外，單純以被害人身分為兒童即加重刑罰乃至判處死刑，於刑事法學理上亦無法找到實質的法益保護及其正當性。因此，李宏基案死刑定讞判決就兒童權利公約之論述，除有明顯誤用兒童權利公約之外，「判死，以兒童之名」，此等希冀透過嚴懲以保護兒童之說，恐怕也只是一種對加重處罰效果的過度期待而已。

Under the shadow of multiple child homicides and the public's growing appetite for severe penalties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has become a central argument not only for proponents of mandatory death penalty for child homicide but also for Courts’ decisions to impose death penalties in such cases. The case of Li Hung-chi is one of them. However, under the CRC regime, State Parties’ obligation to protect the child's right to life calls for preventive measures from the front end. The criminal sentencing of the perpetrator in a child homicide is an unrelated issue in this respect. Moreover, the imposition of death penalty can never be justified through the Child's Right to Life rationale, as it would contradict the purpose of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a document that envisions an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty. The contradiction cannot survive the standpoint of consistent and coherent interpretation. Furthermore, the imposition of harsher penalties or even death penalty on account of the victim being a child finds no justification in theories of criminal law. This Commentary argues that the opinion of the Court in the Case of Li Hung-chi is problematic in two ways: it misconstrues the obligation imposed by the CRC and harbors false hope that resorting to harsher penalties would bring about adequate protection of the Child's Right to Life.