論不自證己罪與非刑事法領域之協力義務──以德國及中國大陸法制為例

On the Principle of Non-Self-Incrimination and the Duties of Concertation in Non-Criminal Law Areas: A Case Study of German and Mainland China’s Legal Systems

對於不自證己罪原則的理解與證成，必須從功能性角度切換為義務視角。無論是困境模式、公平審判模式，還是刑法模式，均難以為不自證己罪原則的保護範圍劃定合理的邊界。不自證己罪原則的規範本質在於免除被告的證人義務。無論是被告還是第三人，只要他們具有公民身分，原則上就需要承擔作證義務。受無罪推定原則影響，在法院作出有罪判決之前必須推定被告是無罪的。但被告一旦進入刑事訴訟中就必須遭受加重的嫌疑，從而承受刑事程序的危險，故而被告在刑事訴訟中屬於特別犧牲者，其公民義務必須限縮至消極協助範圍內。此外，既不能認為破產人裁定中的調和方案可以普遍適用於所有的衝突情形，也不能直接將調和方案訴諸立法形成自由。在調和方案的具體設計上，應考慮到各種不同的衝突類型。

Understanding and justifying the principle of non-self-incrimination must be switched from a functional perspective to a duty perspective. Neither the dilemma model, the fair trial model, nor the criminal law model can draw a reasonable boundary for the scope of protection of the principle of non-self-incrimination. The very nature of the principle of non self-incrimination is that it relieves the defendant of the duty to be a witness. Whether the defendant or a third party, as long as they have a civil status, they are in principle obliged to testify. Influenced by the principle of presumption of innocence, the defendant must be presumed to be innocent until the court passes a guilty verdict. However, once the defendant enters the criminal proceedings, he must be subjected to aggravated suspicion and thus to the dangers of the criminal program. Therefore, the defendant is a special victim in the criminal proceedings, and his civic duty must be limited to the scope of negative assistance. In addition, it cannot be argued that a mediation scheme in the Bankrupt-Decision can be universally applied to all conflict situations, nor can it be directly appealed to the freedom of legislation to create a mediation scheme. Different types of conflicts should be taken into account in the specific design of the mediation scheme.