冤案新聞之建構—以鄭性澤案為例

Abstract

由於我國目前尚未有任何以冤案新聞為主題之研究，本研究旨在透過我國著名冤案「鄭性澤案」，初步探討新聞媒體如何建構冤案議題。本研究首先提出本研究冤案的定義，探討我國冤案的現況與成因；接著，爬梳新聞媒體與司法之間的關係，並回顧國外冤案新聞相關研究，提出新聞媒體參與冤案平反及預防的方式；最後，再從社會建構主義的觀點，說明新聞媒體如何建構社會問題。

本研究採質性論述分析法以及框架分析，以我國四間主流媒體《ETtoday》、《自由時報》、《聯合報》、和《中國時報》為研究對象，分析新聞媒體的報導趨勢和分佈、消息來源及其論述如何影響鄭性澤案的新聞報導、以及新聞媒體所建構之鄭性澤案的成因、應該關注的理由、以及解決的方法。

本研究發現，關於鄭性澤案的犯罪報導，新聞媒體呈現有罪推定；然而，在鄭性澤案的冤案新聞中，由於消息來源具備高度權威性，因此在新聞媒體的報導上，為此案開拓了無罪論述的可能性。然而，當法院開啟再審後，新聞媒體卻也透過多方的消息來源，再次進行媒體審判。本研究亦發現，新聞媒體僅將「刑求自白」建構為造成鄭性澤案主因，卻不見對司法體制的檢討，也沒有深入的調查報導。此外，新聞媒體傾向透過訴諸情感的動機框架，將鄭性澤及其親屬無辜可憐之情狀，建構為應該關注該案的理由，卻甚少訴諸邏輯，將該案建構為一侵害人權之問題。最後，政府單位被建構為解決冤案的行動者以及預防方案的提出者，對救援團體卻少有著墨。

Due to the lack of research on wrongful conviction news in Taiwan, this study aims to explore how the media constructs the issue of wrongful convictions through the analysis of the wrongful conviction case “Zheng Xin-Zhe case.” This study employs qualitative discourse analysis and frame analysis, focusing on four mainstream media outlets: ETtoday, Liberty Times, United Daily News, and China Times. It analyzes trends and distribution in media reporting, how sources and discourse affect the news coverage, and how the media constructs the causes of, reasons for concern, and solutions.

This study discovered that crime reports on the Zheng Xin-Zhe case in the news media presented a presumption of guilt; however, in news regarding the possible wrongful conviction of Zheng Xin-Zhe case, the high authority of the news sources initiated the innocence discourses of Zheng Xin-Zhe. Yet, once the retrial commenced, the media again conducted a “media trial” through various news sources. The study also found that the media only constructed “coerced confessions” as the primary cause of the Zheng Xin-Zhe case, without critiquing the judicial system or conducting in-depth investigative reporting. Moreover, the media tended to use an emotional framing, constructing Zheng Xin-Zhe and his relatives as innocent and pitiable, as reasons for concern, but seldom resorted to logic to construct the case as a human rights issue. Finally, government units were constructed as the actors who resolve wrongful convictions and propose prevention plans, with little focus on the rescue groups.