請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/98543完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝煜偉 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yu-Wei Hsieh | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 彭啟倫 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Chi-Lun Peng | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-18T00:48:49Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-08-18 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-08-15 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-08-05 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文書籍
王秀梅（2018），《美國死刑制度與經典案例解析》，北京大學，載於：https://www.sanmin.com.tw/product/index/013309242。 王皇玉（2024），《刑法總則 （第10 版）》，台北：新學林。 朱甘霖（1929），《刑事訴訟法釋義》，上海：大東書局。 吳文正（2014），〈就審能力、證人能力與受刑能力鑑定〉，《司法精神醫學手冊》，頁272-274，台北：台灣精神醫學會。 林山田（2008），《刑法通論（下）》，台北：元照。 林鈺雄（2024），《新刑法總則（第12 版）》，作者自版。 美國法學會（著），劉仁文、王禕（譯）（2005），《美國模範刑法典及其評注》，北京：法律出版社。 翁燕菁（2017），〈生命權與緊急危難之安全保障〉，《身心障礙者權利公約 》，頁167-192，台北：新學林。 康煥棟、俞鍾駱（1933），《刑事訴訟法論》，上海：上海法學編譯社。 陳瑾昆（1930），《刑事訴訟法通義》，北平：朝陽。 廖福特（2017），〈歷史發展及權利內涵〉，《身心障礙者權利公約》，頁3-24，台北：新學林。 American Psychiatric Association（著），台灣精神醫學會（譯）（2014），《Dsm-5 精神疾病診斷準則手冊》，合記。 中文翻譯書籍 貝加利亞（著），李茂生（譯）(1993)，《犯罪與刑罰》，協志工業叢書。 Linda E. Carter, E. S. K., Scott W. Howe（著），王秀梅、邱陵、曾賽剛（譯）(2009)，《美國死刑法精解》，北京大學。 中文期刊 吳建昌、彭啟倫（2024），（死刑受刑能力---司法精神鑑定之倫理爭議）， 《月旦醫事法報告》，97期，頁134-154。 周漾沂（2015），（刑罰的自我目的性---重新證立絕對刑罰理論）， 《政大法學評論》，147期，頁279-346。 林慈偉（2020），（首件適用《公政公約》第 36 號一般性意見之死刑裁判例：評臺灣彰化地方法院 107 年重訴字第 13 號刑事判決），《台灣人權學刊》，5卷2期，頁183-194。 許恒達（2010），（「原因自由行為」的刑事責任），《國立台灣大學法學論叢》，39卷2期，頁351-431。 許家馨 （2014），（應報即復仇---當代應報理論及其對死刑之意涵初探）， 《中研院法學期刊》，15期，頁216-219。 陳志龍 （1993），（刑法目的與預防理論），《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，23卷1期 ，頁115-156。 劉傳璟 （2015），（論刑罰的目的—應報之綜合理論的再建構），《刑事法雜誌》，59卷5期，頁37-80。 謝煜偉（2014），（重新檢視死刑的應報意義），《中研院法學期刊》，15期，頁139-206。 謝煜偉（2020），（聯合國人權事務委員會關於公政公約第6條生命權提出之第36號一般性意見（ccpr/ c/gc/36） 對我國死刑量刑基準的影響（一）），《法務通訊》，頁3-6。 顏厥安 （2015），（不再修補殺人機器--評論許家馨與謝煜偉教授有關死刑之文章），《中研院法學期刊》，17期，第 335-368頁。 英文書籍 American Bar Association (2024). Criminal justice mental health standards, with commentary. American Bar Association. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (Vol. 16). Springer Science & Business Media. Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). Step One: Select a Topic : Personal Interest to Formal Research Topic. In Step One: Select a Topic: Personal Interest to Formal Research Topic (Third Edition ed., pp. 4). Corwin. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071939031.n2 Melissaris, E. (2014). Theories of Crime and Punishment. In The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199673599.013.0016 Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts (4 ed.). The Guilford Press. Moore, M. S. (1980). Legal Conceptions of Mental Illness. In B. A. Brody, Engelhardt, H.T. (Ed.), Mental Illness: Law and Public Policy (pp. 25-69). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8972-6_2 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan. Sulmasy, D. (2007). “Reinventing” the rule of double effect. In B. Steinbock (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of bioethics (pp. 114–149). Oxford University Press. 英文期刊 Ackerson, K. S., Brodsky, S. L., & Zapf, P. A. (2005). Judges' and Psychologists' Assessments of Legal and Clinical Factors in Competence for Execution. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 164. Adeleye, N. (2021). The Death Row Phenomenon: A Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. San Diego L. Rev., 58, 875. American Bar Association (2006b). Recommendation and Report on the Death Penalty and Persons with Mental Disabilities. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 30(5), 668. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20786881. Arnold, Katie. (2014). The challenge of rationally understanding schizophrenic's delusions: an analysis of scott panetti's subsequent habeas proceedings. Tulsa Law Review, 50(1), 243-270. Blume, J. H. (2005). Killing the Willing:" Volunteers," Suicide and Competency, Mich. L. Rev, 103, 939. Bonnie, R. J. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: Beyond Dusky and Drope. U. Miami L. Rev., 47, 539. Brodsky, S. L. (1990). Professional ethics and professional morality in the assessment of competence for execution: A response to Bonnie. Law and Human Behavior, 14(1), 91-97. Brodsky, S. L., Zapf, P. A., & Boccaccini, M. (1999). Post conviction relief: The assessment of competence for execution. Proceedings of Psychological Expertise and Criminal Justice An APA/ABA Conference for Psychologists and Lawyers, Washington, DC. Campbell, E. (1990). The psychopath and the definition of mental disease or effect under the model penal code test of insanity: question of psychology or question of law. Nebraska Law Review, 69(1), 190-229. Cunningham, M. D., & Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death row inmate characteristics, adjustment, and confinement: a critical review of the literature. Behav Sci Law, 20(1-2), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.473 Darby, R. R., & Dickerson, B. C. (2017). Dementia, Decision Making, and Capacity. Harv Rev Psychiatry, 25(6), 270-278. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000163 Dieguez S. (2018). Ganser Syndrome. Frontiers of neurology and neuroscience, 42, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000475676 Ebert, B. (2001). Competency to be Executed: A Proposed Instrument to Evaluate an Inmate's Level of Competency in Light of the Eight Amendment Prohibition against the Execution of the Presently Insane. Law & Psychol. Rev., 25, 29. Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12(3), 177-190. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.448 Fine, C., & Kennett, J. (2004). Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility: Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment. Int J Law Psychiatry, 27(5), 425-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.06.005 Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. Am J Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450-1454. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.140.11.1450 Hazard, G. C. J., & Louisell, D. W. (1962). Death, the state, and the insane: Stay of execution. UCLA Law Review, 9(2), 381-405. Heilbrun, K. S. (1987). The Assessment of Competency for Execution: An Overview. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5(4), 383-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370050403 Heilbrun, K. S., & McClaren, H. A. (1988). Assessment of competency for execution? A guide for mental health professionals. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 16(3), 205-216. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3179499 Hoyle, C., & Hutton, J. (2024). National Sovereignty versus Universal Human Rights: Drugs and the mandatory death penalty in Singapore. Amicus Journal, 38-45. Johnson, M. (2014). Fifteen Years and Death: Double Jeopardy, Multiple Punishments, and Extended Stays on Death Row. BU Pub. Int. LJ, 23, 85. Johnson, R. (1979). Under sentence of death: The psychology of death row confinement. Law & Psychol. Rev., 5, 141. Mathias, R. E. (1988). Assessment of competency for execution: Assessment and dissonance on death row: The dilemma of consultation. Forensic Reports. Misra, M., Sinha, N., Pathare, S., Gill, N., & Javed, A. (2024). World Psychiatric Association position statement on mental health and the death penalty. The Lancet Psychiatry, 11(4), 239-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00434-0 Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Startle reflex modulation. J Abnorm Psychol, 102(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.102.1.82 Schildkraut, J. (2013). An inmate’s right to die: legal and ethical considerations in death row volunteering. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(2), 139-150. Schopp, R. F. (1991). Wake up and die right: The rationale, standard, and Jurisprudential significance of the competency to face execution requirement. Louisiana Law Review, 51(5), 995-1046. Seeds, C. (2008). The afterlife of Ford and Panetti: Execution competence and the capacity to assist counsel. Louis ULJ, 53, 309-348. Small, M. A., & Otto, R. K. (1991). Evaluations of competency to be executed: Legal contours and implications for assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(2), 146-158. Smith, A. (2007). Not Waiving but Drowning: The Anatomy of Death Row Syndrome and Volunteering for Execution. B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., 17, 237-254. Speece, M. W. (1995). Children's concepts of death. Michigan Family Review, 1(1). Steiker, C. S. (2007). Panetti v. Quarterman: Is there rational understanding of the supreme court's eighth amendment jurisprudence. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5(1), 290-295. Studen, G. R. (2009). Panetti v. Quarterman: Solving the competency dilemma by broadening the concept of rational understanding in competency-to-be-executed determinations. Seton Hall Law Review, 39(1), 163-190. Tartaro, C., & Lester, D. (2016). Suicide on Death Row. J Forensic Sci, 61(6), 1656-1659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13069 Wilson, R. J. (2016). The death penalty and mental illness in international human rights law: Toward abolition. . Washington and Lee Law Review, 73(3), 1469-1500. Wu, K. C. C., & Lee, M. B. (2011). Patients' Legal Competence in Treatment Decision-making. Journal of Medical Education, 15(3), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.6145/jme.201109_15(3).0002 Zapf, P. A., Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2003). Assessment of competency for execution: Professional guidelines and an evaluation checklist. Behav Sci Law, 21(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.491 網路資料 工商時報（2024），《醫師涉受死刑能力判斷 司法精神醫學會憂違反倫理》，載於：https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240921700776-431401。 中華民國教育部（2025），《重編國語辭典修訂本》，載於：https://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=103584。 王昱翔、江昱萱（2022），《待死現象面臨著什麼》，載於：https://www.taedp.org.tw/story/11021。 法務部（2021，Dec. 29 2024），《沿革》，載於：https://www.moj.gov.tw/2204/2205/2206/2209/2210/5756/post。 法務部（2022），《兩公約第三次國家報告國際審查結論性意見與建議英文版及中文版（定稿版）》，載於：https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/17725/17733/17735/17740/37227/37228/37234/post。 法務部（2024），《結論性意見與建議中、英文版（106年4月6日總統府人權諮詢委員會確認）》，載於：https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/17725/17733/17745/17755/17756/23434/。 國家人權委員會（2025a），《公約簡介》，載於：https://nhrc.cy.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=8682。 國家人權委員會（2025b），《身心障礙者權利公約 / crpd》，載於：https://nhrc.cy.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=8683。 陳志賢（2020），《翁仁賢伏法前還一度抗拒 被拖至刑場伏法》，載於：https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20200401006136-260402?chdtv。 趙宥寧（2018），《蔡政府開第一槍！首度執行死刑，殺妻女死囚李宏基今伏法》，載於：https://www.storm.mg/article/484668。 謝雅竹（2025），《黃麟凱槍決伏法 台灣仍有36名死囚》，載於：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202501160383.aspx。 衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2022），《身心障礙者權利公約（CRPD）初次國家報告國際審查會議結論性意見》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=261。 衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2024），《身心障礙者權利公約（CRPD）第二次國家報告國際審查會議結論性意見中、英文版》，載於：https://crpd.sfaa.gov.tw/BulletinCtrl?func=getBulletin&p=b_2&c=D&bulletinId=1710。 戴雅真（2025），《司法界籲檢討死刑存廢 日本政府拒絕：死刑不可廢》，載於：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202411140424.aspx。 聯合報（2024），《最高檢擬定「求處死刑案件檢核表」 強化檢察實務》，載於：https://udn.com/news/story/124292/8400245。 American Bar Association (2006). Mental Illness Resolution. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://dpic-cdn.org/production/legacy/122A.pdf American Bar Association (2016). Criminal justice mental health standards. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/mental-health-standards-2016.pdf American Medical Association (2017). 9.7.3 Capital Punishment. Retrieved May 4 from https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/9.7.3?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FEthics.xml-E-9.7.3.xml American Psychiatric Association (2017). Adoption of the American Medical Association (AMA) Statement on Capital Punishment (Policy E-2.06). Retrieved May 4 2025 from https://www.psychiatry.org/about-apa/policy-finder/adoption-of-the-american-medical-association-ama Amnesty International. (2025a). death penalty. Retrieved June 6 2025 from https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/ Amnesty International. (2025b). Singapore/Malaysia: Imminent execution of Pannir Selvam Pranthaman must be halted. Retrieved July 3 2025 from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/singapore-malaysia-imminent-execution-of-pannir-selvam-pranthaman-must-be-halted/ CBS News (2023). Texas inmate on death row for nearly 30 years ruled not competent to be executed. Retrieved Jun 4 2025 from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-panetti-texas-death-row-inmate-not-competent-to-be-executed/ Death penalty information center. State Summaries. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/resources/high-school/state-by-state-data/state-summaries European Court of Human Rights. (2024). Factsheet: Death penalty abolition. Retrieved May 4 2025 from https://www.echr.coe.int/d/fs_death_penalty_eng Garner, B. A. (2019). rationality. In (1.4 ed.): Apple App Store. Ministry of home affairs (2021). The Death Penalty in Singapore. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://www.mha.gov.sg/home-team-real-deal/detail/detail/the-death-penalty-in-singapore Tan, Y. (2022). Singapore executes man on drugs charge, rejecting mental disability plea. BBC. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61239221 Team, W. D. (2021). People v. William Freeman (1847). Cornell Law School. Retrieved Apr. 6 2025 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/people_v._william_freeman_(1847) Team, W. D. (2023). insanity. Cornell Law School. Retrieved Apr. 6 2025 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity The advocates for human rights. (2022). Japan - Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Death penalty - July 2022. Retrieved June 2025 from https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/International_Submissions/A/Index?id=563 The death penalty project. Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan. Retrieved May 4 2025 from https://deathpenaltyproject.org/story/earl-pratt-and-ivan-morgan/ The Law Dictionary. Become Aware Of. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://thelawdictionary.org/become-aware-of/ The Law Dictionary. Punishment. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://thelawdictionary.org/punishment/ United Nations. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crpd U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025). UN Treaty Body Database: View the ratification status by country or by treaty. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=157&Lang=en U.S. Department of Justice. 637. Insanity—Present Statutory Test—18 U.S.C. § 17(a). Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-637-insanity-present-statutory-test-18-usc-17a U.S. Department of Justice. (2007). Justice Delayed? Time Consumption in Capital Appeals: A Multistate Study. Retrieved Apr 6 2025 from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/justice-delayed-time-consumption-capital-appeals-multistate-study US legal. Perceive Law and Legal Definition. Retrieved June 4 2025 from https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/perceive/ WHO. (2022). Mental disorders. Retrieved Nov. 18 2025 from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders World Psychiatric Association (1996). Madrid Declaration on Ethical Standards for Psychiatric Practice. Retrieved May 4 2025 from https://www.wpanet.org/current-madrid-declaration World Psychiatric Association. (2023). World Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Mental Health and the Death Penalty. Retrieved May 4 2025 from https://www.wpanet.org/_files/ugd/842ec8_954aafaa000b4ce38c282309ef68b6f9.pdf?lang=fr 其他資料 王幼玲、楊芳婉、高湧誠 (2020)，（調查報告），《109司調0007號》，監察院。 吳建昌、李茂生及許恒達 (2021)，《刑事訴訟法第465條及第467條關於心神喪失與受刑能力條文之修訂》，司法院。 薛煒育 (2025)，憲法法庭113年憲判字第 8號判決後續修法芻議，《憲法法庭113年度憲判字第8號判決後續個案救濟與修法座談會》，台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟（主辦），台北。 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/98543 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 確認死刑定讞待執行者之受刑能力為我國死刑執行前應注意事項，惟此受死刑執行能力之定義仍有待釐清，我國過去實務判決或學術文獻亦鮮少觸及。本論文從刑事法學和精神醫學的角度探討接受死刑執行能力的內涵，使用文獻回顧研究檢視人權公約和美國法下的相關規定、判決與學說理論，以及精神醫學界對受死刑執行能力的問題界定、實務發展與關注重點。
本論文從美國聯邦最高法院重要判決、各州政府制定法、美國律師協會，整理討論受死刑執行能力的核心內涵，包括是否應限定主體資格及與律師協同辯護之能力爭議，並探討背後可能隱含的刑罰目的（第二章）；接著探討人權公約對身心障礙者判處死刑的立場，藉由國外人權法院相關重要判決理解身心障礙者生命權保障之具體展現，據以從上述理論及實務中分析精神障礙者不應被判處死刑的立論與死刑能力的關係（第三章）。 完成上述檢視之後，回頭檢視精神鑑定實務，盤點我國法規範及國外持續發展之受死刑執行能力鑑定指引。接著，由於我國司法精神醫學界過去對於受死刑執行能力並無深入探究，此項能力精神鑑定能否具體回應法規範中的受死刑執行能力要件，以及當精神醫療團隊參與鑑定，必須面對的實務和倫理困境亦是不可迴避的挑戰；最後，「死囚現象」的定義與內涵，從精神病理學的觀點，是否影響受死刑執行能力，以及治療必要性亦是密切相關的議題（第四章）。 總而言之，本論文試圖為司法精神醫學界和法律界對此議題的不一致理解，找出對話的基礎，共同探究公平、人道和科學地評估一個人是否具有接受死刑執行的能力，從而對未來可能的精神鑑定實務和法律政策制定具有啟發意義。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Confirming the "competency to be executed" of a person sentenced to death should be considered before executing the death penalty in Taiwan. However, the definition of competency to be executed still needs to be clarified, and it has yet to be explored in past judicial decisions or academic literature. This paper aims to review the connotation of competency to be executed from criminal law and psychiatry perspectives. Using the literature review methodology to examine the relevant provisions, judicial decisions, theories under the Human Rights Conventions and American law, and explore the definition and practical development of issues on the competency to be executed.
This paper first explores the core connotations of the competency to be executed under positive law from the United States federal and state Governments, American Bar Association, and important Federal Supreme Court decisions, including whether the subject qualifications should be limited and the controversy over the ability to assist counsel, and thus explores possible implicit purposes of punishment (Chapter 2). I delve into the position of the human rights covenants on the death penalty for persons with disabilities and understand the right to life of persons with disabilities through relevant judicial decisions of international courts of human rights, thus analyzing the relationship between the argument that persons with disabilities should not be executed and the competency to be executed (Chapter 3). Then, the thesis reviews the practice of psychiatric evaluation, lists current legal provisions of our country, and searches guidelines for evaluation of the competency to be executed that are currently to be developed or tentatively practiced. The evaluation of competency to be executed poses an unavoidable challenge since forensic psychiatrists have not conducted in-depth research on it. It is essential to determine if the evaluation can respond to the elements of competency to be executed and identify practical and ethical dilemmas that the psychiatric team may face when participating. In addition, the definition and connotation of "death row phenomenon", from a psychopathological view, whether it affects the competency to be executed, and the necessity of treatment are also closely related issues (Chapter 4). Overall, this thesis attempts to establish a basis for dialogue between the community of forensic psychiatry and the legal community's inconsistent understanding of this issue and jointly explore a fair, humane, and scientific assessment of a person's competency to be executed to guide forensic examination and legal policy formulation. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-08-18T00:48:49Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-08-18T00:48:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
謝辭 II 中文摘要 III ABSTRACT IV 目次 VI 表次 VIII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題意識 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究範圍與本文架構 4 第四節 定義與翻譯 7 第一項 能力（Competence或competency） 7 第二項 精神錯亂（Insane） 7 第三項 精神疾病（Mental disorder） 8 第四項 懲罰（Punishment） 8 第五節 研究方法 9 第二章 從美國成文法及判例法連結受死刑執行能力的核心內涵及刑罰目的 12 第一節 受死刑執行能力的成文法及判例法 12 第一項 美國重要判決探討 13 第二項 聯邦政府及州政府規範整理 32 第三項 美國律師協會立場 45 第二節 受死刑執行能力的核心內涵 48 第一項 精神障礙與心智缺陷 48 第二項 知道（Aware）或合理理解（Rational understanding） 52 第三項 知道或合理理解的內容 54 第四項 與律師協同辯護之能力（Ability to assist counsel） 58 第五項 小結 61 第三節 懲罰精神病犯的目的 63 第一項 絕對刑罰理論 64 第二項 相對刑罰理論 66 第三項 綜合理論 68 第四項 小結 70 第三章 國際人權公約對身心障礙者接受死刑之立場 72 第一節 公民與政治權利國際公約（ICCPR）及身心障礙者權利公約（CRPD） 72 第一項 公民與政治權利國際公約 72 第二項 身心障礙者權利公約 75 第二節 人權公約國際審查涉及身心障礙者接受死刑之情況 78 第一項 新加坡 78 第二項 日本 79 第三項 台灣 80 第三節 小結 82 第四章 受死刑執行能力的精神鑑定面向 83 第一節 我國目前法規範與受死刑執行能力的精神鑑定實踐 83 第一項 涉及法規與113年憲判字第八號判決 83 第二項 我國學術界提出之受死刑執行能力鑑定暫行指引 87 第三項 小結 90 第二節 精神鑑定的本身挑戰 92 第一項 外國持續發展的受死刑執行能力鑑定指引 92 第二項 鑑定實務回應憲判八之受死刑執行能力內涵 101 第三項 倫理困境與實務規劃 103 第三節 特殊議題---死囚現象 106 第一項 定義及要件 106 第二項 人權公約及人權法院相關判決 107 第三項 死囚現象對死刑能力鑑定之影響 110 第四項 治療之必要性與目標設定 112 第五章 結論 115 第一節 研究限制 115 第二節 未來方向 115 第三節 結論 116 參考文獻 123 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 受死刑執行能力 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 死刑 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 懲罰 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 應報 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 國際人權公約 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 精神醫學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 精神鑑定 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 倫理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 死囚現象 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | ethics | en |
| dc.subject | psychiatry | en |
| dc.subject | psychiatric evaluation | en |
| dc.subject | death row phenomenon | en |
| dc.subject | competency to be executed | en |
| dc.subject | death penalty | en |
| dc.subject | punishment | en |
| dc.subject | retributivism | en |
| dc.subject | international human rights conventions | en |
| dc.title | 受死刑執行能力及受死刑執行能力鑑定之意義、內涵及其困境---以人權公約與美國法為探討契機 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Meaning, Implications, and Dilemmas of Competency to be Executed and Psychiatric Evaluation--Taking the Human Rights Covenants and U.S. Legislation as an Exploration | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 吳建昌 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | Chieh-Chang Wu | en |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳文正;李茂生 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Wen-Cheng Wu;Mau-Sheng Lee | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 受死刑執行能力,死刑,懲罰,應報,國際人權公約,精神醫學,精神鑑定,倫理,死囚現象, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | competency to be executed,death penalty,punishment,retributivism,international human rights conventions,psychiatry,psychiatric evaluation,ethics,death row phenomenon, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 134 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202503263 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-08-08 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2025-09-01 | - |
| 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-113-2.pdf | 2.52 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。