| 摘要: | 量刑不公及量刑歧異等問題一直是我國司法飽受人民指責之處。事實上，我國實務對於定罪程序之重視程度遠大於量刑程序，量刑事項之審理及判決書中所記載之量刑理由均不夠充分，被告或民眾亦難以自判決書中明確得知法官量處該刑期之理由，以及各該量刑因子對於最終量刑所生之影響。此外，當前之量刑目的不僅限於應報主義及預防主義之追求，尚包含行為人之治療、社會復歸、更生改善可能及修復性司法等。若欲落實該等量刑目的，法官須對行為人有充分之認識，使得依個別行為人之狀況，進行最妥適之量刑。然我國實務就量刑審酌事實多以刑法57條及58條所列事項為主，該等見解過於侷限，使得呈現於法庭之量刑證據不夠完備，法官所能斟酌之量刑事實極為有限，自難使法官全面了解行為人，並據以擇定最有效之矯治方式及刑度裁處。若欲提升民眾對於司法的信賴，且基於對行為人權利之保護，我國應積極建構完整之量刑程序法制，並應充實量刑前調查事項。
首先，本文將自我國之實務判決、重大矚目刑事案件量刑前調查/鑑定評估手冊等部分分析我國量刑程序之現況，並點出當前我國所面臨之問題，舉例而言：量刑前調查之定性、量刑前調查應如何進行、量刑調查資料之開示，以及當事人應如何對調查內容表示異議等事項均不明確。因我國欠缺一套完整的量刑程序規範制度，本文擬藉由量刑制度發展較為長遠且研究頗豐之美國法做為我國之參考對象。自美國法之量刑目的及量刑程序發展為開展，並透過美國聯邦最高法院之數則判決，剖析美國之量刑程序係如何建構及量刑前調查制度之內涵及操作，並引述相關立法。而後，就我國所面臨之量刑程序問題進行檢討，並以美國法之量刑前調查制度及規範進行衡酌對照，探討有哪些部分值得我國學習，哪些部分於我國恐不適用，進一步提出對於我國將來量刑程序法制建構之建議。
;The issues of sentencing injustice and sentencing disparity have long been the focus of public criticism toward the judicial system in Taiwan. In practice, the emphasis placed on conviction procedures far outweighs that on sentencing procedures. This results in insufficient sentencing hearings and justifications in written judgments, making it difficult for defendants and the public to understand the rationale behind a specific sentence or how various sentencing factors influenced the final decision.
Furthermore, contemporary sentencing objectives have evolved beyond mere retribution and deterrence to include rehabilitation, social reintegration, and restorative justice. To achieve these goals, judges must have a comprehensive understanding of the offender to determine the most appropriate sentence. However, current practice focuses narrowly on the factors listed in Articles 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code, leading to incomplete evidence and limited information for the court, which hinders the selection of effective correctional methods. To enhance public trust in the judiciary and protect the rights of the accused, Taiwan must actively construct a complete legal framework for sentencing procedures and enrich pre-sentencing investigations.
This article first examines the current state of sentencing procedures in Taiwan through an analysis of judicial decisions, and existing presentence investigation and assessment manuals. It identifies several unresolved issues, including the legal nature of presentence investigations, the methods by which such investigations should be conducted, the disclosure of presentence investigation materials, and the procedures by which parties may raise objections to the contents of such investigations. In light of the absence of a comprehensive sentencing procedural framework in Taiwan, this study adopts U.S. law—which possesses a long-standing sentencing system and extensive research—as a reference. Starting with the development of sentencing objectives and procedures in the U.S., this study analyzes the construction and operation of the pre-sentencing investigation system through several U.S. Supreme Court rulings and relevant legislation. Finally, the article reviews the problems faced by Taiwan’s system, compares them with U.S. standards to evaluate their applicability, and proposes recommendations for the future legal construction of Taiwan’s sentencing procedures. |
