| 摘要: | 我國過往刑事訴訟體系中，多以被告之地位及權利為討論中心，犯罪被害人因不具訴訟主體地位，而在程序上受有「資訊不全」、「參與不足」、「保護不周」三大困境。為提升犯罪被害人於刑事訴訟體系之地位，並使其享有一定程度之權利，我國於2019年三讀通過刑事訴訟法中有關犯罪被害人保護及訴訟參與制度草案，並於隔年施行之。自此，犯罪被害人得依法於特定或重大案件中提出聲請，以訴訟參與人之身份參與訴訟，並可享有如「選任代理人之權、卷證資訊獲知權、受通知及在場權、證據辯論意見陳述權，以及科刑意見陳述權」等。同時，續修定同法第163條第4項、第289條第2項，更於國民法官法將犯罪被害人訴訟參與制度相關權利納入其中，以期全面解決犯罪被害人長期以來所面臨之困境，並提升人民對司法之信賴。
惟，上開制度是否能為犯罪被害人帶來預期助益，或恐因修法尚有不全之處，所衍生之問題及影響。本文即藉由研究日本被害者參加訴訟制度、美國犯罪被害人保護法制，以及德國附加訴訟制度為比較借鏡，重新檢視我國法制可能疏漏之處，並提出建言及未來修法方向，嘗試畫出最適合我國之犯罪被害人訴訟參與制度藍圖，使在解決犯罪被害人困境及提升權益之同時，亦不破壞既有之訴訟平衡，更保障被告受有公平審判之權利，進而達到刑事訴訟法「發現真實」與「保障人權」之立法意旨。;In the past, the criminal litigation system in Taiwan generally focused on the defendants′ status and rights. On the other hand, not being procedural subjects, crime victims suffer from three major obstacles in the criminal litigation process: incomplete information, insufficient participation, and inadequate protection. To strengthen crime victims’ status and enable them to enjoy a certain degree of rights in the criminal litigation system, the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”), which passed the third reading in the Legislative Yuan in 2019, includes the protection and participation of crime victims to be implemented in the following year. Ever since, in prescribed or major cases, crime victims can request to be a procedural participant in the criminal litigation, thereby enjoying "the right to be represented”, “the right to be informed,” “the right to be notified and present,” “the right to present opinions regarding evidence,” and “the right to present opinions about sentencing," etc. Under the same token, Paragraph 4 of Article 163 and Paragraph 2 of Article 289 of CCP as well as the Citizen Judge Act were all amended in order to incorporate the crime victim′s right to participate into the criminal litigation system. These amendments aimed to comprehensively solve the long-standing difficulties faced by crime victims and to enhance the people′s trust in the judicial system.
Nevertheless, there might be concerns about whether the amendments can bring the expected benefits to crime victims. The amendments might be insufficient, further creating problems and implications. Thus, the impetus of this paper was to discover the potential omission and problems in our system by comparing the procedural participants’ status under the victim participation in Japan, the crime victims′ rights in America, and the private accessory prosecution (Nebenklage) in Germany. This paper attempted to draw a blueprint for the most suitable victim participation system in our country and proposes some suggestions and directions for future amendments. With this blueprint, both spirits of the CCP—discovering truth and protecting human rights—can be achieved; that is, not only the plight of crime victims can be resolved, but also the victims’ rights can be enhanced without upsetting the existing balance in the criminal litigation system and without sacrificing the defendant′s right to a fair trial. |
