請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60644
標題: | 刑事補償之法理探討與法制建構 Exploration of the theories on criminal compensation and construction of legal system |
作者: | Sheng-Te Lo 羅盛德 |
指導教授: | 李建良 |
關鍵字: | 刑事補償,冤獄賠償,特別犧牲,危險責任,損失補償,國家賠償, criminal compensation,wrongful detentions and executions,specially sacrificed,dangerous responsibility,compensation for loss and damage,State Compensation, |
出版年 : | 2013 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 自古以來,冤獄一直被認為是個人屈辱的莫大象徵;於現代追求刑事正義之今日,對於因形式上合法之刑事程序執行,嗣後始認為是受到不當人身自由之拘束,已被承認是不能避免發生的必要之惡。按有損害即應予以補償,基本權侵害中又當屬非財產權為劇,尤其是在不可回復性的侵害中,如何補償受害人的損失厥為各國刑事補償法制歷來重要的議題。
臺灣走過殖民、威權統治,加上國家賠償法及損失補償制度之繼受、近期大法官解釋的驟變進而導致刑事補償的修法,有其特殊的歷史背景,是故自1959年冤獄賠償法施行以來,從理論層面到法制運作迭有爭議。本文所將探討的內容和研究的方向,及最後所欲提供的建議與結論如下: 1. 探求我國刑事補償的憲法上定位。我國歷來有關冤獄賠償法之認識,多如其名理解為國家賠償法之特別法,並認為憲法第24條為其依據。然而這樣的認知是否適合並足以解釋現行刑事補償法,倘若有缺失又應如何重建其憲法上依據。 2. 冤獄賠償(刑事補償)與國家賠償法之糾葛難解,涉及國家責任中補償與賠償兩大責任體系,在具有時代意義的釋字670號解釋肯認國家因實現刑罰權或實施教化、矯治之公共利益致人民基本權利受有特別犧牲得請求國家補償後,當如何補強我國殘弱的損失補償體系,並劃出與國家賠償責任之分野。 3. 刑事補償理論爭議中,又以延續自損失補償與國家賠償而來—特別犧牲與危險責任間之論戰最熾,至今未休,尤其釋字670號解釋作成後主倡危險責任者為有力之說。探討如何擇取適當理論詮釋刑事補償法,並消弭其間爭議,延續憲法依據及國家責任論據,賦予刑事補償理論全新架構。 4. 刑事補償條文規範與當事人之切身關係莫不為損失補償請求權之落實,應考量刑事補償理論與我國法規範,參酌實務運作數據,決定有關限制請求範圍及補償額度等權衡條款的設定,並進一步討論對公務員求償條款的基礎,以及現行條文類型規範的不足,俾利於維護刑事補償上的人權保障。 綜上所述,本論文之研究結果可作為日後相關研究的基礎,並作為未來實務操作參考依據,希冀藉此使各界更重視刑事補償及相關法制之相關議題與研究。 In these days we are striving for pursuing criminal justice, it is admitted generally that the wrongful detentions and executions are unavoidable serious faults. Since there are the damages, the compensation must be given. In the infringement of basic right, the non-property rights are the severest, especially for the irreversible ones. Therefore, it has become a worldwide important issue in criminal compensation law field how to compensate the victims. The situation in Taiwan went through many different environments due to the special historical background. Thus, the theories and real operation of wrongful detentions and executions compensation laws have been considered as controversial issues since 1959 when it was implemented. The essay will provide the following suggestions and conclusions: 1. Research the position of criminal compensation in Constitution. Most cases and understanding come from Constitution No.24. However, it is still room to discuss the suitability and adjustment directions for the current system. 2. The separation of criminal compensation and state compensation is confusing. In Explanation No. 670, people can ask for state compensation after getting through the wrongful specially sacrifices. And it will be discussed in this essay that how to reinforce our compensation system for loss and damage and how to distinguish criminal compensation from state compensation. 3. As above, the essay also discuss about the proper theory to explain criminal compensation and reduce the argument. It gives new structures of criminal compensation theory and it also lasts the spirit of Constitution and national responsibility. 4. It is also important that deciding the limitation based on practical operation. And further discuss the compensation provision for government employees. To recap, the conclusions in the essay can be the base of future research and operation. I hope our society can pay more attention on the related issues and make our system better. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60644 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 科際整合法律學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.33 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。