犯罪化理論初探：論立法形成自由與行為規範的形構

Abstract

向來我國刑法學界的文獻，多將重點放在釋義學，討論如何解釋適用條文。相較於此，從刑事立法學的角度出發，討論立法者如何立一個好法的文獻，可謂寥寥無幾。本論文有感於我國不佳的立法品質，以及僅能排除違憲法律，而對尚未違憲但品質不佳的法律無能為力的司法審查現況，認為應嘗試從立法的角度出發，建構立法的規範。並且，如果立法者的應為圖像已經足夠清晰，向來在釋憲實務中常提及的「立法形成自由」，我們也能夠進一步正面描述其內涵為何，而不僅僅是將其等同於司法審查的界限。在刑事學如此廣袤的領域中，本論文將聚焦於刑法的行為規範，討論立法者如何設計出一個好的犯罪構成要件，以及需要注意的種種事項。 對此，本論文主要借鑑英國有關於犯罪化（criminalization）的討論，嘗試從J. S. Mill以降的犯罪化理論中，找尋可資我國採用的理論。其中，法律道德主義（legal moralism）與侵害原理（harm principle）兩大陣營的各種論爭，是上世紀以來犯罪化理論研究的主要焦點。在這兩大陣營中，本論文主要基於侵害原理在犯罪化的討論可能不夠明確的理由，以及M. S. Moore的法律道德主義誤將行為規範與制裁規範混為一談的理由，採用R. A. Duff的法律道德主義。 Duff強調刑法的目標在於對那些會影響公共秩序，而被認為是公共錯誤（public wrong）的行為予以回應，以維持公共秩序。此外，Duff並認為影響公共秩序的行為在不同的社群會有所不同。在此基礎之上，本論文在將其理論本土化的過程中，勢必要說明在我們的社群中，要透過什麼樣子的法律程序（legitimate processes）來認定公共錯誤。 這些法律程序，本論文將其區分為「是否犯罪化」及「如何犯罪化」兩個階段。第一階段是在進行公共錯誤性的認定，在確定有公共錯誤性之後，才可以進入到第二階段。此外，第一階段對立法者而言，除了公共錯誤性的論證要求之外，還必須注意到有一些公共錯誤，是無法在立法的場域中具備公共錯誤適格的，這個適格性的要求是基於立法者作為國家機關以及人民代表的雙重身分而來。第二階段有三個要求，分別是規範目的的提出、罪刑法定主義的遵守以及國家責任的注意。前兩個要求與公共錯誤性有高度關聯，理由在於規範目的是作為公共錯誤性的體現，而遵守罪刑法定主義就是在要求構成要件的設定必須與公共錯誤性相貼合。第三個要求則是立法者作為國家機關，所要做到的自身對犯罪是否有貢獻度的檢討，以及犯罪化是否合乎整體利益衡平的注意。本論文並會以三個實例：刑法第319條之4的散布他人不實性影像罪、學說曾熱烈討論入罪的私部門賄賂罪以及被宣告違憲後刪除的舊刑法第239條之通姦罪，來說明犯罪化理論的應用。 根據這些說明，本論文將提出一個以犯罪化理論為名，而以形塑行為規範的各項指標為內涵的立法者的規範。而理論中的各項指標，有些僅有違憲與否的判斷，有些則存在立法者衡量的空間，於是可以具體的說明，哪些事項存在立法形成自由，哪些事項則否。甚至，在存在立法形成自由的事項，我們也可以具體的說出，在什麼樣子的狀況下，立法者是在濫用其形成自由。最終，我們將清楚的了解行為規範的形構方法，以及立法形成自由的具體樣貌。

In the field of criminal law in our country, literature has traditionally focused on hermeneutics, discussing how to interpret and apply provisions. In contrast, from the perspective of criminal legislative theory, discussing how legislators can create good laws is rarely explored. This thesis, in light of the poor legislative quality in our country and the current state of judicial review that can only eliminate unconstitutional laws but is powerless against subpar laws that are not unconstitutional, argues for the need to construct legislative norms from the legislative perspective. Moreover, if the ideal image of what legislators should do becomes sufficiently clear, the often-mentioned "legislative discretion" in constitutional practice can be positively described, not just equated with the limits of judicial review. In the vast field of criminal law and criminal justice, this thesis will focus on the behavioral norms of criminal law, discussing how legislators can design good elements of crime and the various considerations they need to take into account. In this regard, this thesis mainly draws on discussions of criminalization in the UK, attempting to find theories from the criminalization theories since J.S. Mill that could be adopted in our country. Among these, the debates between legal moralism and the harm principle have been the main focus of criminalization theory research over the past century. In these two camps, this thesis adopts R.A. Duff's legal moralism, based on the reasons that the harm principle may not be clear enough in discussions of criminalization, and that M.S. Moore's legal moralism conflates behavioral norms with sanction norms. Duff emphasizes that the goal of criminal law is to respond to behaviors that affect public order and are considered public wrongs to maintain public order. Furthermore, Duff believes that behaviors affecting public order vary in different communities. On this basis, this thesis, in the process of localizing his theory, must explain what legitimate processes are needed to identify public wrongs in our community. These legitimate processes are divided into two stages: "whether to criminalize" and "how to criminalize." The first stage involves the identification of public wrongness, and only after determining that there is public wrongness can the process move to the second stage. In addition, for legislators, the first stage requires not only the argumentation for public wrongness but also recognizing that some public wrongs are not suitable for criminalization in the legislative arena. This requirement of suitability is based on the dual identity of legislators as state organ and representative of the people. The second stage has three requirements: the presentation of the normative purpose, adherence to Nulla Poena Sine Lege, and attention to state responsibility. The first two requirements are closely related to public wrong, as the normative purpose embodies public wrong, and adherence to Nulla Poena Sine Lege requires that the definition of the crime must align with public wrong. The third requirement involves legislators, as state organs, examining whether the state has contributed to the crime and whether criminalization aligns with the overall balance of interests. This thesis will illustrate the application of criminalization theory with three examples: the crime of distributing synthetic sexual videos of others under Article 319-4 of the Criminal Code, the crime of private sector bribery that has been hotly debated in academia, and the old crime of adultery under Article 239 of the Criminal Code, which was declared unconstitutional and subsequently deleted. Based on these explanations, this thesis will propose a legislative norm named after criminalization theory but with various indicators for shaping behavioral norms as its content. Among the indicators in the theory, some only have a judgment of constitutionality, while others allow for legislative discretion, thus specifying which matters are within the legislative discretion and which are not. Furthermore, even in matters within legislative discretion, we can specify under what circumstances the legislature is abusing its discretion. Ultimately, we will clearly understand the methods of shaping behavioral norms and the concrete appearance of legislative discretion.