| 摘要: | 社會普遍對量刑與判決結果的不信任，催生出本文以師法美國選科死刑案件量刑制度強化臺灣量刑模式的研究意志。在對美國法典與判例進行實證研究後，發現美國自1970年代開始注意到選科死刑案件有判決恣意，該國Georgia等州遂相繼以嶄新的雙階刑事程序與量刑判斷標準以通過違憲審查。另美國Arizona當代的選科死刑案例除了考量被告的減輕刑罰因素外，也對於是否存在加重刑罰事由細細斟酌，不會因為有利於被告的單一因素做為迴避死刑事由；另亦不因犯行係出於間接故意而影響情節嚴重的評價。在蒐集2003年至2023年台灣選科死刑案件的總計72則最高法院刑事判例之判決理由之後，發現2003年之後台灣僅對於事涉故意殺人的刑事案件選科死刑，在2009年兩公約施行法，更開始參酌《公民與政治權利國際公約》第6條規定的「情節最重大犯罪」作為量刑基礎。2018年聯合國人權理事會對該公約的作出的第36號一般性意見，更使司法實務將死刑的適用範圍限於「直接故意殺人」。2012年後的最高法院刑事判例開始有系統化的以刑法第57條分析被告的犯罪情節與專屬於被告的行為人事由作為量刑基準。吾人可歸納出當代選科死刑案件的三大主訴議題包括：「犯罪情節是否重大」、「有無教化可能性」、「被告子女最佳利益之審定」等。
在與美國法進行比較研究後，得出以下結論與修法建議。第一，在美國法制中，得以死刑相繩的一級殺人罪包括明知卻容任其發生的間接故意殺人。第二，教化可能性或被告子女最佳利益作為單獨推翻死刑適用的因素，將有恣意風險。第三，被告的減輕刑罰事由可仿效美國量刑前調查報告作為測量方式；而決定是否選科死刑，應經過加重因素與減輕因素的權衡。第四，台灣司法應參酌美國法制對選科死刑案件另設獨立的量刑基準，提升法律的規範密度。;The general distrust of sentencing and Trial results in society has given rise to the research will of this paper to strengthen Taiwan′s sentencing model by learning from the sentencing system of death penalty cases in the United States. After conducting an empirical study of the U.S. Code and precedents, it is found that since the 1970s, the United States began to notice that there were arbitrary judgments in death penalty cases, and Georgia and other states in the country successively adopted a new two-level criminal procedure and sentencing judgment standard to pass the constitutional review. In addition to considering the mitigating factors of the defendant′s punishment, the contemporary death penalty case of Arizona in the United States also carefully considers whether there are reasons for aggravating circumstances, and will not use a single factor in favor of the defendant as a reason to avoid the death penalty. Besides, the assessment of the seriousness of the circumstances is not affected by the fact that the offense was committed with indirect intent. After collecting the reasons for the judgment of a total of 72 Supreme Court criminal precedents in Taiwan′s elective death penalty cases from 2003 to 2023, it was found that after 2003, Taiwan only selected the death penalty for criminal cases involving intentional homicide, and in 2009, the two Covenants came into force, and began to refer to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the basis for sentencing. The 2018 UN Human Rights Council′s General Comment No. 36 on the Convention has led judicial practice to limit the application of the death penalty to direct intentional homicide. Since 2012, the Supreme Court′s criminal precedents have begun to systematically use Article 57 of the Criminal Law to analyze the circumstances of the defendant′s crime and the reasons for the defendant′s conduct as the Trial standards. The three main issues of contemporary death penalty cases, including "whether the circumstances of the crime are serious", "whether there is a possibility of indoctrination", "the determination of the best interests of the defendant′s children", etc.
After a comparative study with U.S. law, the following conclusions and suggestions for amending the law are drawn. First, in the United States legal system, first-degree homicide, which is punishable by death, includes indirect intentional homicide that was knowingly allowed to occur. Second, there is a risk that the possibility of indoctrination or the best interests of the accused′s children will be arbitrarily used as a factor in overturning the application of the death penalty alone. Third, the defendant′s mitigating circumstances can be measured in the same way as the U.S. pre-sentencing investigation report; The decision on whether to choose the death penalty should be weighed against aggravating and mitigating factors. Fourth, Taiwan′s judiciary should refer to the U.S. legal system to set up independent sentencing standards for death penalty cases, so as to improve the law. |
