重構刑法第57條的量刑架構――從量刑目的與行為人圖像出發

Reconstructing the Framework for Article 57 of the Criminal Code : By the Sentencing Purposes and the Image of Offender

本文主要回應三個量刑理論的問題。
首先，量刑目的是否等同刑罰目的？既有論述大多認為，只要確立刑罰目的後，就得解決量刑實質問題，但本文並不認同。本文以應報觀點為主要檢討，並旁論預防、復歸與修復觀點後，認為上開觀點無法同時回答如何節制強制力，以及選擇適當的犯罪應對方式，尤其應報觀點採取賦予痛苦的邏輯，把指向復歸與刑罰轉向的措施，都解釋為比較輕微的痛苦，而未正確掌握不同量刑手段中的刑事政策意涵。本文再來檢視作為主流地位的限制應報論，以英美重要論者為對話對象，論者正確指出量刑的實質意義，必須注意到強制力與量刑的複雜性，但卻採取錯誤方式回應複雜性，選擇不同目的先後排序，而未建立融貫的量刑目的。本文認為應從實質作用思考量刑目的，著重強制力與刑事政策面向，並設定量刑目的為選擇適當的犯罪應對方式，若涉及施加強制力，則須注意如何節制強制力。
接著，量刑過程應如何看待行為人？本文從我國實務判決中，發現行為人圖像具有影響量刑的作用，因此如何設定行為人圖像，就具備量刑理論意義。本文借用犯罪學的基本預設，指出量刑應採取具體脈絡式的行為人圖像，把行為人的犯行原因與生命經驗陳列出來，得有助於量刑目的達成。
最後，按照本文設定的量刑目的與行為人圖像，得否給予刑法第57條「行為人之責任」與基本適用架構不同的刺激？本文認為從量刑目的分析，則「行為人之責任」不只是罪責原則，而有不同意義的責任內涵，而量刑目的與行為人圖像，則提供建構不同量刑理論的契機。

This article is to respond to the three questions toward the sentencing theory.
First of all, is the purpose of sentencing equal to the purpose of punishment? According to previous discourses, the penalty should be claimed right after the purposes of punishment is established. But in this article, different opinions are provided. After reviewing the retributivism, and also crime prevention, rehabilitation, and restorative justice, this article indicates that the previous discourses could not simultaneously answer the questions of how to limit coercion and choose the proper way of answering crime. Especially retributivism believes the justice requires offender to suffer in return, considering rehabilitation and diversion actions are deficient suffering, in hence that it couldn’t grasp the meaning of penal policy in different sentencing measurements. Furthermore, this article reviews the important western followers of retributivism. As the mainstream theory, retributivism correctly indicates the purposes of sentencing shall aware of the enforcement and complexity of penalty. However, retributivism takes the wrong way to reply penalty’s complexity, focusing on the sequence of objectives, instead of establishing the logical purpose of sentencing. This article considers that the purpose of sentencing should be established on a substantial result, concentrating on enforcement and penal policy, and also targeting the purpose of sentencing as the proper way to establish the penalty. If it includes the enforcement of imposition, the enforcer should aware of its abstinence.
Secondly, how the offender should be regarded during the sentencing process? The article reviews the court decisions in Taiwan, discovering that the image of the offender affects the sentencing. Hence, how to set the image of the offender is provided with the meaning of sentencing theory. In this article, according to the assumption of criminology, the penalty should be claimed with the contextual image of the offender. By reviewing the offender’s causes of crime and life experiences, the purpose of sentencing can be effectively settled.
Lastly, with the purpose of sentencing and the image of the offender that is explained in this article, could the liability of the offender in Article 57 of the Criminal Code and the basic application of law be given different stimulation? Analyzing with the purpose of sentencing, the liability of the offender is not only with the connotation of the principle of culpability, but also the responsibility. Whereas, the purpose of sentencing and the image of the offender provides the possibility of applying different sentencing theory.