白玫瑰刺傷了誰？──以刑法第227條為中心反省純潔童年形象之建構

Abstract

刑法第227條全面地將與16歲以下之人為性交或猥褻行為一事視為侵害，並且基於法律家長主義否定未成年人同意的有效性而成立犯罪，然而不管將法益之危害設定為擬制性自主權之侵害或者身心健全發展的危險，都存在著論理上的缺陷。 我認為必須將相關規範與概念置於歷史的脈絡中去考察其流變。透過權力視角的分析，發現將這種犯罪當成是個人法益之侵害是相當晚近的轉變，而以法律家長主義保護未成年人之個人法益論述，不斷藉由法律體系再生產的單一「純潔童年形象」，其背後擺脫不掉性道德的建構。 其次，為了批判刑法中家長主義式的立法，我將視野擴大到對於刑罰機能的解明，主張應該以被現代理性所忽略的犯罪事後處理機能作為理解刑事制度的基盤，故國家透過刑罰介入人民生活的界線，應該限於侵害原理才有最低限度的可容許性。 最後，透過重新檢討刑法第227條之法益，認為在現行法下應該拒斥容易帶入濃厚道德色彩的身心健全發展，在肯認未成年人作為擁有能動性的主體之前提下，將法益侵害設定為未成年人性自主權的實害，並據此提出解釋學上的抵抗策略，我主張本罪之成立應限縮在未得同意的情形。

Article 227 of the Criminal Code criminalizes categorically sexual intercourses with or obscene acts against persons under the age of sixteen, invalidating the consent of minors on the grounds of legal paternalism. It is flawed in theory, however, to construe the threat to legal good as such, be it the infringement of fictional right to sexual self-determination, or the danger to sound development of mind and body. I argue that the evolution of relevant concepts and norms is to be studied in the context of history. Through analysis from the perspective of theory of power, it is only a recent transformation to regard this crime as infringement of personal legal good. Claiming to protect minors with legal paternalism, such an argument merely replicates the sole idea of “pure image of childhood” within the legal system, and thereby fails to excuse itself from the construction of sexual morality. My research further sheds light on the function of criminal punishment, so as to criticize paternalistic legislation in criminal law. The ex post resolution function of crime, which has been ignored by modern rationalism, should serve as the foundation for comprehending the criminal system. Accordingly, the State is not to interfere in people’s private lives as long as the standard of harm principle is not met. In conclusion, the crime of Article 227 of the Criminal Code is established only in absence of consent. Such a hermeneutical strategy of resistance is developed through reflections on the legal good. Sound development of mind and body is easily morally-driven and thus should not come into consideration under existing law. Rather, injury to right to sexual self-determination is what constitutes infringement of legal good, in light of the fact that minors qualify as subjects with agency.