| 摘要: | 在台灣選舉過程中，採取「負面競選」（negative campaigning）是相當普遍的手法，也因此經常引起選舉誹謗訴訟案件。然而，這類涉及高度政治敏感性的司法案件，其判決結果是否會受到政治因素的影響？本論文蒐集「司法院法學資料檢索系統」，於2000年1月至2011年3月期間，各級法院（地方法院、高等法院、最高法院）選舉誹謗案件判決，透過「政黨因素」、「當選與否」、「關係背景」（選舉層級及被告身分）、「審判層級」四個指標，採取量化與質化（文獻分析及深度訪談）兩種研究方法、三個階段資料分析，檢證政治因素是否會影響選舉誹謗案件的判決結果。實證資料顯示，在量化分析方面，除當選者較易被判無罪之外，其餘三個指標（政黨因素、關係背景、審判層級）與法院判決之間並不必然存有因果關係。在質化分析方面，亦無法證明政治因素有系統性的影響法院的判決。總體而言，民間對於審判刻板印象，譬如「法院是國民黨開的」、「當選過關，落選被關」、「有關係就沒關係、沒關係就有關係」、「一審重判，二審減半，三審不算」等，與實際司法運作情形有所出入，而這樣的落差乃因對於法律審判原則不熟悉及政治人物訴諸群眾力量所造成。在結論中，摘述分析要點，並提出研究限制及未來可能發展方向。 During elections, negative campaigning is a fairly common approach taken in Taiwan, and therefore often leads to cases of defamation in campaign. Owing to high political sensitivities with which such judicial cases are characterized, most people doubt whether such ruling results would be affected by political factors. This article collected data on judgments of campaign defamation in the Courts (District Court, the High Court and Supreme Court) from January 2000 to March 2011. Relevant data are obtained from “The Judicial Yuan of The Republic of China Law and Regulations Retrieving System.” Using quantitative analyses and qualitative method (documentary analyses and in-depth interviews), this article investigates the impacts of four indicators (partisanship, elected or not, sociopolitical connections, and judicial procedure) on litigations of campaign defamation. In the quantitative analyses, empirical data show that the three indicators (partisanship, sociopolitical connections, and judicial procedure) do not necessarily have a causal relationship with the Court's judgments except that those elected are more likely to be found not guilty. In the part of qualitative analyses, there is no obvious evidence proving that political factors systematically influence the Court's decisions. Generally speaking, we conclude that the stereotypes of judicial systems, for example, “the courts are dominated by the Kuomintang;” “those elected will be let off, but those losing the elections will be imprisoned;” “those with good social connections won’t have any problem, but those without connections will have big trouble;” or “at the first trial a heavy sentence is passed, at the second trial the sentence is halved, and at the third trial the case is quashed;” are different from the actual situations in judiciary operations. This gap between people’s perceptions and the reality is largely due to the general public’s unfamiliarity of the legal principles and politicians’ strategy to impose pressure on the Courts by mobilizing voters. In conclusion, the key findings and research limitations are reviewed, and suggestions of judicial politics are proposed for future research. |
