| 摘要: | 本論文以司法詢問員之證據法性質和問題為研究主軸，聚焦於兒童遭受性犯罪案件中被害人陳述之取得與評價問題。由於兒童在認知、語言、記憶與性發展上與成年人存有顯著差異，導致其於刑事程序中可能無法準確理解問題或完整敘述經歷，進而影響證詞之證明力。而傳統刑事訴訟程序若直接適用於兒童被害人，恐不僅造成程序性障礙，亦易引發對其身心之二度傷害。
我國自民國104年起引入司法詢問員制度，並於112年修法強化相關規範。司法詢問員透過專業方式協助兒童理解問題並表達陳述，試圖在保障被告防禦權與減輕被害人壓力之間取得平衡。然而，實務與學界對司法詢問員於審判階段所扮演之角色，尚無一致見解，法院對其定位亦見諸「證人」、「鑑定人」、「鑑定證人」與「通譯」等不同說法。另外，透過司法詢問員所得之證詞是否具有證據能力，亦涉及對質詰問權與傳聞法則之適用問題，具有高度爭議性。
本論文透過比較法分析英美等國制度運作模式，並蒐集我國相關判決進行實證分析，綜合學理與實務觀點，提出司法詢問員在刑事審判程序時宜採「鑑定證人」定位之建議，以利審判程序中對其證言性質與作用有明確適用標準。在對質詰問權之保障方面，本文認為若能於訴訟上給予被告合理之補償措施（如強化對其他證人之對質詰問、弱勢證人證詞不得作為被告有罪之唯一證據或主要證據等），司法詢問員制度可於未實質減損被告防禦權之前提下，作為被告對質詰問權保障之合憲例外。
研究最終建議應從立法面、制度面與程序面同步改善，強化司法詢問員之專業培訓與角色界定，使制度得以長遠運行，兼顧兒童保護與程序正當，落實實體正義與人權保障雙重目標。
;This thesis centers on the evidentiary nature and legal issues surrounding forensic interviewers in Taiwanese criminal procedure, with a focus on the acquisition and evaluation of statements made by child victims in sexual offense cases. Due to significant developmental differences in cognition, language, memory, and sexual understanding between children and adults, child victims may be unable to fully comprehend legal questions or provide coherent accounts of their experiences. This raises concerns about the probative value of their testimony. The direct application of traditional criminal procedures to child victims can result not only in procedural obstacles but also in secondary psychological harm.
Since 2015, Taiwan has introduced the forensic interviewer system, and the relevant legal framework was further strengthened through amendments in 2023. Forensic interviewers are tasked with assisting child victims in understanding and responding to questions using professional techniques, aiming to strike a balance between protecting the defendant’s right to a fair defense and reducing the psychological burden on the victim. However, both judicial practice and academic literature have yet to reach a consensus on the role of forensic interviewers during trial proceedings. Court decisions have variously categorized them as witnesses, expert witnesses, expert advisors, or interpreters. Moreover, whether statements obtained through forensic interviewers are admissible as evidence is a matter of debate, particularly in relation to the right of confrontation and the hearsay rule.
This study adopts a comparative legal approach, analyzing systems in the United Kingdom, the United States, and other jurisdictions, alongside an empirical review of Taiwanese court decisions. It proposes that forensic interviewers be designated as “expert witnesses” in criminal trials to ensure a consistent legal standard regarding the admissibility and function of their testimony. Regarding the right of confrontation, this thesis argues that if appropriate compensatory measures are provided to the defendant—such as reinforcing cross-examination of other witnesses or prohibiting conviction based solely or primarily on the testimony of vulnerable witnesses—the forensic interviewer system may serve as a constitutionally valid exception to the right of confrontation without materially impairing the defendant’s defense rights.
The study concludes by recommending coordinated reforms in legislation, institutional design, and procedural safeguards. It emphasizes the need to enhance the training and role definition of forensic interviewers to ensure the system’s long-term viability, promote child protection, uphold procedural justice, and achieve the dual goals of substantive justice and human rights protection. |
