日治臺灣對「陪審」的引介與政治訴求

Abstract

1895年日本領有臺灣後，引進西方式法院，使得屬於西方式法院一環的「陪審」有被引介的可能。經歷領臺之初的摸索後，1898年後藤新平於政治上確立臺灣是「殖民地」，西方殖民地司法中的「陪審」因此進入臺灣司法政策的視野，成為解決司法官非本地人此一問題的可能方案。然在兒玉後藤體制下，採用了舊慣調查，並確立民事爭訟調停和犯罪即決等制度，以轉譯舊慣來回應殖民地的需求，確定不採取西方殖民地司法中的陪審制度。此後，臺灣總督府仍關注包含陪審在內的西方殖民地司法諸類型，但僅止於調查與知識的搜羅，並未將陪審納入政策中。 1919年治臺政策改為內地延長主義，同時適逢日本母國著手陪審法的立法工作，「陪審」在內地延長的框架下成為臺灣法曹關注的議題。1923年日本帝國議會通過陪審法，陪審法施行於日本內地，包含居住於日本內地的臺灣人和朝鮮人亦適用陪審法；但在六三體制下，日本內地與臺灣屬於異法域，陪審法並不當然施行於臺灣。由於日本內地與殖民地臺灣政治情事的不同，在1926年的全國司法官會議中，確定了陪審法暫不施行於臺灣。亦即，臺灣總督府法院不採行陪審，無論是臺灣人或日本人，在使用臺灣總督府法院時並無機會經驗陪審審判。 雖然如此，面對內地延長的基本方針，臺灣總督府仍然未雨綢繆地進行部分準備工作，例如將學習陪審知識納入警察的訓練項目中。另一方面，臺灣法曹界、在臺日人、以及臺灣人，或基於對新制度的好奇，或為了未來施行而預作準備，或為了積極主張施行於臺灣，而舉辦講演、參與陪審模擬劇、及撰寫文章介紹日本陪審制度的具體內容。其中，臺灣人政治運動將陪審作為政治訴求的一環，主張臺灣人不僅要參與行政和立法、也要透過陪審制度參與司法權的運作，以此謀求臺灣人的政治參與。 雖然直至1943年日本陪審法因戰爭而暫時停止施行為止，臺灣都未曾採行陪審制度；但陪審知識的引介、以及陪審作為政治訴求的現身，使臺灣社會對陪審有模糊的概念，將陪審想像為「較好」的司法制度，或者將陪審當作向執政者表達不滿的方式。在日本治下形成了對陪審的想像的臺灣社會，在戰後遭遇新的政權時，面對刑求、關說、或司法貪瀆，再度將陪審作為表達不滿的工具，以主張陪審來批評司法與執政者。

Following Japan's acquisition of Taiwan in 1895, the introduction of Western-style courts brought with it the possibility of introducing the "jury system," a component of this modern judiciary. Following an initial experimental period, Gotō Shimpei politically defined Taiwan as a "colony" in 1898, which brought lay participation found in Western colonial justice systems into the purview of Taiwan's judicial policy as a potential solution to the issue of non-local judicial officers. Under the Kodama-Gotō administration, however, investigations of old customs (kyūkan chōsa) were conducted, and two special colonial institutions—administrative officials' civil 'mediation' and the police officers' criminal summary judgments were established, responding to the needs of the colony through official interpretations of old customs, rather than incorporating local people into the judicial process through lay participation system. Thereafter, the Government-General of Taiwan (GGT) continued to monitor developments in Western colonial justice systems, including the lay participation system, but limited its efforts to overseas observation and the collection and translation of relevant foreign texts. When the governance policy shifted to metropolitan-extension (naichi enchō) in 1919, and as Japan's metropolitan government simultaneously embarked on the legislative work for a jury system, "jury system" emerged as a topic of concern among Taiwan's legal profession. In 1923, the Imperial Diet passed the Jury Law, which came into force in metropolitan Japan—covering Taiwanese and Korean residents there as well. On the other hand, under the regime of special colonial legislation (the Law 63 system), metropolitan Japan and colonial Taiwan constituted different jurisdictions, and therefore the Jury Law did not automatically extend to Taiwan. Due to the differing political circumstances between metropolitan Japan and colonial Taiwan, it was announced at the National Judicial Officials' Conference of 1926 that the Jury Law would not, for the time being, be implemented in Taiwan. As a result, courts in Taiwan did not adopt jury trials; neither Taiwanese nor Japanese subjects experienced jury adjudication when using those courts. Nevertheless, in case the metropolitan-extension policy should eventually require the implementation of the Jury Law in Taiwan, the GGT undertook certain preparations, such as introducing police officers to the jury system as part of their training. Meanwhile, members of Taiwan's legal profession, Japanese residents in Taiwan, and Taiwanese populace—whether driven by curiosity toward the new system, preparation for its future implementation, or active advocacy for its extension to Taiwan—organized lectures, participated in jury mock trials, and authored articles detailing the specific contents of the Japanese jury system. While others often engaged with the jury system out of curiosity or anticipation of its possible implementation, Taiwanese political movements made jury trials a more sustained and explicit political demand. They demanded Taiwanese participation in administration, legislation, and judicial authority alike—with the jury system serving as the proposed avenue for the last of these—as part of their broader pursuit of political participation for the Taiwanese people. Taiwan never implemented the jury system during the years the Jury Law was in force—from its passage in 1923 until its wartime suspension in 1943. Nonetheless, the circulation of knowledge about lay participation and the emergence of jury trial as a political demand instilled in Taiwanese society a vague but lasting acquaintance with the institution, imagining it as a better form of judicial system or employing it as a vehicle for expressing discontent toward the ruling authorities. Having formed this imagination of jury trial under Japanese rule, Taiwanese society, upon encountering a new governing regime in the postwar period and confronted with torture, judicial interference, or corruption in the courts, once again wielded jury advocacy as a tool of dissent—using calls for jury trial to criticize the judiciary or those who held state power.