刑事處罰慾望之深層心理—以精神分析為取徑

Abstract

懲罰他人的欲望無非刑事法最古老的根柢，卻缺席當代刑法學論述；刑法論述者傾向將行為主體化約為理性人，卻無力理解大眾要求嚴罰犯罪者的欲望。精神分析的欲望理論指出了主體的分裂：懲罰欲望必然是他者的欲望，與語言所支撐的文明社會密不可分。 尼采透過債的觀念理解懲罰，指出公正應報背後，必然潛藏著猶如剩餘價值（mehr Wert）的多餘快感，具體呈現支撐懲罰欲望的幻見結構。懲罰永遠指向文明所擔保的可能出口，如共同體的團結抑或「安全」的象徵符號，呈現如神經症一般的欲望經濟。然而，懲罰欲望所保證的出口與刑罰目的，無非掩飾了背後重複如永劫回歸的欲力（Trieb）向度。佛洛伊德發現令犯罪人傷害他人的侵略欲力與群眾據以要求嚴懲犯罪的道德約束，皆來自相同根源，分屬死亡欲力的不同階段演進；以道德試圖約束侵略的要求必然走向失敗，因為兩者實出同源。 克莉斯蒂娃提出的賤斥（Abject）概念，具體地分析死亡欲力如何在殊異社會文化中展演。在成為主體之前，嬰孩必須經歷一番痛苦掙扎，方得與母親分離並成功建立自身邊界，因爲母親的包容涵納與吞噬僅有一線之隔。她／他必須驅逐包圍自身、提供全然滿足的陰性物，才得以穩固脆弱的自戀自我。驅逐效應完整地體現在各種儀式性的邊際確立之上，兇殘犯罪之所以卑賤，無非是體現了法律界線的脆弱，亦觸及主體自身的界線恐懼。懲罰的渴望因此關聯到主體確立自身的深刻需求，無涉善惡的道德評價。又，孕生於大他者（Autre）轉變下當代文化的「新主體」，難以透過社會的象徵功能定錨自身，徘徊於模糊未定的自戀認同邊緣，因而更亟欲以賤斥他者確立自身的主體位置。 人應如何面對懲罰他人的欲望？精神分析發現，無論是極度抑制自身懲罰渴望，抑或放縱自身於懲罰幻想，皆無法免於內在罪疚感的折磨。儘管宗教、科學或藝術性的昇華得以為欲望找到合理出口，卻無法帶我們在欲望的道路上走更遠。精神分析指出了理解他人與自身的不可能性，卻亦提供主體窺探自身慾望核心的可能，儘管最終看似神秘的內核僅是空缺，彰顯生命無可迴避的無助狀態（Hilflösigkeit）。

‘The Will to Punish’ might be one of the most ancient foundations of criminal law, but which is completely absent from comtemperary criminal discussion. Criminal law scholars tend to treat subject of law as ‘rational being’, althought the desire to serverely punish criminals remains as mystery. The theory of desire in psychoanalysis points out the spilting of the subject: the desire to punish must be the desire of the ‘Other’, which is inseparable from the civilized society supported by language. Nietzsche analyses the punishment through the conception of debt, tells that surplus pleasure must lie behind retributive justice, like the surplus value in Max’s economic theory, demonstrating the fantastic structure which supports the will to punish. Punishment always leads to possible exports guaranteed by civilization, such as the unity of the community or the symbolic gesture of 'security', presenting a desire economy of neurosis. However, the will to punish is nothing more than a disguise, concealing the endless repetition of drive which lies behind the scene of desire. Freud found that aggressiveness and morality all derived from the same root, which evolved at different stages of the death drive; the requirement of acquiring morality to constrain the aggressiveness will inevitably lead to failure, because these two are homologous in essence. Kristeva's conceptualization of Abject analyzes how death drive performes in different social cultures. To fight for subjectivity, infant must experience painful struggles before separating from mother and successfully establishing its own boundaries, as the mother's tolerance and engulfing are only one line apart. She/he must expel the femininity that surround herself and provide total satisfaction, in order to stabilize the fragile narcissistic self. The abjection effect is fully embodied in the establishment of various ritual margins. The reason why the monsterous crime is abjection is that it reflects the fragility of the legal boundary and the fear of frontier violations of the subject itself. The will to punish is therefore related to the subject's deepest need to establish itself, and there is no moral evaluation of good or evil. Moreover, the 'new subject' which was born in the era of transforming Other(Autre), wuthout anchoring itself through the symbolic function of society, she/ he wander besides the obscure blink of narcissistic identifiaction. For establish its own fragile subjectivity, more intense abjection is required. At last, how should people deal with the will to punish others? Psychoanalysis found that whether it is to repress or to indulge in punitive fantasy, the sense of gulit is always inevitable. Although religious, scientific or artistic sublimation can find a reasonable export for desire, it cannot take us further on the road of desire. Psychoanalysis points out the impossibility of understanding others and ourselves, but it provides the possibility that the subject can pry into the core of one's desires, although in the end the seemingly mysterious kernel is only a vacancy, highlighting the state of helplessness (Hilflösigkeit).