請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21457
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王皇玉 | |
dc.contributor.author | Nai-Hao Chung | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鐘乃皓 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:34:39Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-18 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-08-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 王皇玉(2018),刑法總則,4版,臺北:新學林。
甘添貴(2013),刑法各論(上),3版,臺北:三民。 林山田(2008),刑法通論(上冊),10版,臺北:自版。 林鈺雄(2011),新刑法總則,3版,臺北:元照。 陳子平(2017),刑法各論(上),3版,臺北:元照。 黃榮堅(2012),基礎刑法學(上),4版,臺北:元照。 盧映潔(2017),刑法分則新論,12版,臺北:新學林。 蘇俊雄(1998),刑法總論(II),2版,臺北:國立臺灣大學法學院圖書部。 王兆鵬(1999),刑事舉證責任理論──由英美法理論出發,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,28卷4期,頁167-191。 王皇玉(2014),加重結果犯之因果關係,月旦法學教室,145期,頁27-29。 古承宗(2018),正當防衛的法釋義結構與流變──法制史面向的考察,月旦裁判時報,78期,頁58-75。 李聖傑(2010),刑法第二二二條第一項第一款「二人以上共同犯之」之適用思考,政大法學評論,115期,頁1-54。 林山田(2007),論加重結果犯,台灣本土法學雜誌,99期,頁8-15。 林鈺雄(2008),罪疑唯輕原則之適用範圍,台灣本土法學雜誌,106期,頁211-218。 高金桂(2013),自由與罪責,軍法專刊,59:4期,頁141-167。 張天一(2016),由「勒斃竊賊案」判決論過當防衛之判斷──評臺灣高等法院105年度上易字第1232號判決,月旦刑事法評論,3期,頁94-109。 張弘昌(2018),勇夫護孕妻的代價──正當防衛與防衛過當及實務見解簡要研究(上),司法周刊,1893期,頁3-3。 張弘昌(2018),勇夫護孕妻的代價──正當防衛與防衛過當及實務見解簡要研究(下),司法周刊,1894期,頁2-3。 張麗卿(2008),無期待可能性,月旦法學教室,68期,頁18-19。 許恒達(2015),屋主的逆襲──再論延展型過當防衛,月旦裁判時報,41 期,頁49-59。 許恒達(2016),從個人保護原則重構正當防衛,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,45卷1期,頁315-393。 許恒達(2018),正當防衛與不法侵害的現在性,月旦法學教室,185期,頁23-25。 許恒達(2018),退避義務與防衛手段的必要性,月旦法學教室,193期,頁22-24。 許澤天(2016),重利罪的結構與修正方向,月旦刑事法評論,2期,頁82-100。 陳子平(2002),結果加重犯─以最高法院九十年度臺上字第四五九四號判決為主軸對近年相關判例判決之評釋,台灣本土法學雜誌,35期,頁14-25。 陳友鋒(1992),期待可能性─判斷標準之再檢討(上),軍法專刊,38卷5期,頁19-27。 陳友鋒(1992),期待可能性─判斷標準之再檢討(下),軍法專刊,38卷6期,頁14-21。 黃士軒(2018),初探「量的過當防衛」-評最高法院 101 年度台上字第 2536 號刑事判決,月旦裁判時報,69 期,頁67-89。 黃國瑞(2014),口角互毆之正當防衛界限,真理財經法學,13期,頁25-62。 黃榮堅(1995),論正當防衛,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,24卷2期,頁301-325。 蔡墩銘(1990),刑事責任與期待可能性,法令月刊,41卷10期,頁137-139。 薛智仁(2016),傷害致死罪之防衛過當──評士林地方法院104年度易字第628號刑事判決,月旦裁判時報,49期,頁38-48。 W. Hassemer 著,陳志龍譯(1990),區分阻卻違法與阻卻罪責之法理(上),國立臺灣大學法學論叢,19卷2期,頁223-259。[Hassemer, Winfried (1987), Rechtfertigung und Entschuldigung im Strafrecht. Thesen und kommentare, in Eser/Fletcher (Hrsg.), Rechtfertigung und Entschuldigung, I, Freiburg i. Br. : Max Planck-Inst. S.175 ff.] William Burnham 著,林利芝譯(2005),英美法導論,2版,臺北:元照。[Burnham, William. 1999. Introduction to the law and the legal system of the United States. St. Paul, MN: West.] 佐伯仁志(2010),日本における正当防衛論の新たな展開,月旦法學雜誌,177期,頁158。 徳永元(2017),盗犯等ノ防止及処分ニ関スル法律第一条について,九大法学,114 号,頁47。 Brown, Richard Maxwell. 1991. No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burbick, Joan. 2006. Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy. New York, NY: New Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius., and Michael Grant trans. 1969. Selected Political Speeches. London: Penguin Books. Davenport, Anniken U. 2009. Basic Criminal Law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dix, George E. 2009. Gilbert Law Summary on Criminal Law. 18th ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Dressler, Joshua. 1995. Understanding Criminal Law. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Matthew Bender. Dressler, Joshua. 2018. Understanding Criminal Law. 8th ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Dressler, Joshua., and Alan C. Michaels. 2005. Understanding Criminal Procedure: Volume One Investigation. 4th ed. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. East, Edward Hyde. 1972. Pleas of the Crown. (P. R. Glazebrook ed.). London: Professional Books. Emanuel, Steven L. 2007. Criminal Law 6th ed. Austin, TX: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business. Gardner, Thomas J., and Terry M. Anderson. 2008. Criminal Law. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. LaFave, Wayne R. 2010. Criminal Law. 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Philip J. Cook., and Jens Ludwig. 2000. Gun Violence: The Real Costs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reid, Sue Titus. 2009. Criminal Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, Paul H. 1984. Criminal Law Defenses. St. Paul, MN: West. Samaha, Joel. 2005. Criminal Law. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Singer, Richard G. & John Q. La Fond. 2007. Criminal Law the Examples and Explanations Series. 4th ed. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business. Torcia, Charles E., and Francis Wharton. 2011. Wharton's Criminal Law vol. II. 15th ed. Deerfield, IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan. Vilos, Attorney Mitch., and Evan Vilos. 2013. Self Defense Laws of All 50 States. 2nd ed. Centerville, UT: Guns West Publishing. Wellford, Charles F., John V. Pepper., and Carol V. Petrie. 2004. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC.: National Academies Press. Lansford, Tom. 2016. The Early History of Guns: From Colonial Times to the Civil War. Pp. 1-32 in Guns and Contemporary Society : The Past, Present, And Future of Firearms and Firearm Policy. edited by Glenn H. Utter. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC. Abuznaid, Ahmad., Caroline Bettinger-López., Charlotte Cassel., and Meena Jagannath. 2014. “Stand Your Ground” Laws: International Human Rights Law Implications, University of Miami Law Review 68: 1129-1170. Barnes, Mario L. 2015. Taking a Stand? : An Initial Assessment of the Social and Racial Effects of Recent Innovations in Self-Defense Laws. Fordham Law Review 83: 3179-3209. Barros, D. Benjamin. 2006. Home as a Legal Concept, Santa Clara Law Review 46: 255-306. Beale, Jr, Joseph H. 1903. Retreat from a Murderous Assault. Harvard Law Review 16: 567-582. Bell, Pamela Cole. 2015. Stand Your Ground Laws: Mischaracterized, Misconstrued, and Misunderstood. University of Memphis Law Review 46: 383-435. Bell, Victoria. 2019. The “White” to Bear Arms: How Immunity Provisions in Stand Your Ground Statutes Lead to an Unequal Application of the Law for Black Gun Owners. Fordham Urban Law Journal 46: 902-941. Berenguer, Elizabeth Esther. 2017. The Color of Fear: A Cognitive-Rhetorical Analysis of How Florida's Subjective Fear Standard in Stand Your Ground Cases Ratifies Racism. Maryland Law Review 76: 726-746. Bobo, Jason W. 2008. Following the Trend: Alabama Abandons the Duty to Retreat and Encourages Citizens to Stand Their Ground. Cumberland Law Review 38: 339-369. Boots, Denise Paquette., Jayshree Bihari., and Euel Elliott. 2009. The State of the Castle an Overview of Recent Trends in State Castle Doctrine Legislation and Public Policy. Criminal Law Review 34: 515-535. Carpenter, Catherine L. 2003. Of the Enemy Within, The Castle Doctrine, And Self-Defense, Marquette Law Review 86: 653-700. Catalfamo, Christine. 2007. Stand Your Ground: Florida's Castle Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century, Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy 4: 504-545. Cheng, Cheng., and Mark Hoekstra. 2013. Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine. Journal of Human Resources 48: 821-854. Cook, Philip J. 1987. Robbery Violence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78: 357-376. Davidson, L. L., M. S. Durkin., L. Kuhn, P. O'Connor, B. Barlow., and M. C. Heagarty. 1994. The impact of the Safe Kids/Healthy Neighborhoods Injury Prevention Program in Harlem, 1988 Through 1991. American Journal of Public Health 84: 580-586. Epps, Garrett. 1992. Any Which Way but Loose: Interpretive Strategies and Attitudes Toward Violence in the Evolution of the Anglo-American “Retreat Rule”. Law and Contemporary Problems 55WTR: 303-331. Fair, Madison. 2014. Dare Defend: Standing for Stand Your Ground, Law and Psychology Review 38: 153-176. Goldstein, Jonathan S., and Joseph G. S. Greenlee. 2017. Pennsylvania's Expanded Castle Doctrine: An Annotated Tour of the First Five Years. Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 88: 170-184. Green, Stuart P. 1999. Castles and Carjackers: Proportionality and the Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Dwellings and Vehicles. Illinois Law Review. 1999: 1-41. Haddox, Alexis M. 2013. The Ohio Castle Doctrine: Shielding Criminals with a Presumption of Self-Defense. Capital University Law Review 41: 1105-1137. Hall, Anthony. 2013. A Stand for Justice-Examining Why Stand Your Ground Laws Negatively Impact African Americans. Southern Region Black Law Students Association Law Journal 7: 95-112. Heberling, Peter D.W., 1975. Justification: The Impact of the Model Penal Code on Statutory Reform. Columbia Law Review 75: 914-962. Hofstadter, Richard. 1970. America as a Gun Culture. American Heritage Magazine 21: 82-85. Holliday, Wyatt. 2012. “The Answer to Criminal Aggression is Retaliation”: Stand-Your-Ground Laws and The Liberalization of Self-Defense. University of Toledo Law Review 43: 407-437. Jackson, Brandi L. 2015. No Ground on Which to Stand: Revise Stand Your Ground Laws so Survivors of Domestic Violence are no Longer Incarcerated for Defending Their Lives. Berkeley Journal of Gender Law & Justice 30: 154-181. Jaffe, Michelle. 2006. Up in Arms over Florida’s New “Stand Your Ground” Law. Nova Law Review 30: 155-181. Johnson, Nicholas J. 2006. Self-Defense, Journal of Law, Economics and Policy 2: 187-211. Kadish, Sanford H. 1998. The Model Penal Code’s Historical Antecedents, Rutgers Law Journal 19: 521-538. Keegan, Katelyn E. 2013. The True Man & the Battered Woman: Prospects for Gender-Neutral Narratives in Self-Defense Doctrines. Hastings Law Journal 65: 259-282. Khan, Shahabudeen K. 2017. One Decade Later: Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Alive and Well. Intercultural Human Rights Law Review 12: 115-146. Kremnitzer, Mordechai., and Khalid Ghanayim. 2004. Proportionality and the Aggressor's Culpability in Self-Defense. Tulsa Law Review. 39: 875-899. Kuhns, Alicia M. 2017. Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat. University of Baltimore Law Forum 48: 17-33. Lave, Tamara Rice. 2013. Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws, University of Miami Law Review 67: 827-860. Lawson, Tamara F. 2012. A Fresh Cut in an Old Wound-A Critical Analysis of the Trayvon Martin Killing: The Public Outcry, The Prosecutors' Discretion, And the Stand Your Ground Law. University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 23: 271-310. Lerner, Renee Lettow. 2006. The Worldwide Popular Revolt Against Proportionality in Self-Defense Law. Journal of Law. Economics and Policy 2: 331-364. Levin, Benjamin. 2010. A Defensible Defense?: Reexamining Castle Doctrine Statutes. Harvard Journal on Legislation 47: 523-552. Light, Joshua G. 2012. The Castle Doctrine-The Lobby is My Dwelling, Widener Law Journal 22: 219-252. Markovitz, Jonathan. 2015. “A Spectacle of Slavery Unwilling to Die”: Curbing Reliance on Racial Stereotyping in Self-Defense Cases. UC Irvine Law Review 5: 873-934. McClurg, Andrew J. 1999. Child Access Prevention Laws: A Common Sense Approach to Gun Control. Saint Louis University Public Law Review. 18: 47-78. Megale, Elizabeth B. 2010. Deadly Combinations: How Self-Defense Laws Pairing Immunity with a Presumption of Fear Allow Criminals to “Get away with Murder”. American Journal of Trial Advocacy 34: 105-134. Merrett, Daniel J. 2006. Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions: Provide that Person who is Attacked has no Duty to Retreat; Provide Immunity from Prosecution, Georgia State University Law Review 23: 27-35. Messerschmidt, Cristina Georgiana. 2016. A Victim of Abuse Should Still Have a Castle: The Applicability of the Castle Doctrine to Instances of Domestic Violence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 106: 593-625. Neyland, J.P. 2008. A Man’s Car is His Castle: The Expansion of Texas’ “Castle Doctrine” Eliminating the Duty to Retreat in Areas Outside the Home. Baylor Law Review 60: 719-748. Ochs, Sara L. 2013. Can Louisiana's Self-Defense Law Stand its Ground?: Improving the Stand Your Ground Law in the Murder Capital of America. Loyola Law Review 59: 673-721. Pohlman, Sarah A. 2012. Shooting from the Hip: Missouri's New Approach to Defense of Habitation. Saint Louis University Law Journal 56: 857-883. Reddish, Kolby K. 2016. A Clash of Doctrines the Castle Doctrine and the Knock-And-Announce Rule. Widener Law Journal 25: 171-194. Robinson, Paul H., and Markus D. Dubber. 2007. The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview. New Criminal Law Review 10: 319-341. Saltzman, Linda. E., J.A. Mercy., P.W. O'Carroll., M.L. Rosenberg., and P.H. Rhodes.1992. Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. Journal of the American Medical Association 267: 3043-3047. Skiba, Rebekah. 2016. Returning to the Roots of the Castle Doctrine: Why Recent Stand Your Ground Laws are in Line with the Natural Law. Southern Journal of Policy and Justice 10: 71-91. Smith II, Douglas G. 2014. Standing Your Ground in Kansas. UMKC Law Review 82: 847-873. Suk, Jeannie. 2008. The True Woman: Scenes from the Law of Self-Defense, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 31: 237-275. Sweeney, Daniel. 2016. Standing up to “Stand Your Ground” Laws: How the Modern NRA-Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy the Principle of Necessity, Disrupt the Criminal Justice System, And Increase Overall Violence. Cleveland State Law Review 64: 715-746. Travis, Jessica., and Jeffrey James. 2014. Know the Ground You're Standing on: Analyzing Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense in Florida's Legal System. Barry Law Review 20: 91-106. Tysse, Will. 2004. The Roman Legal Treatment of Self Defense and the Private Possession of Weapons in the Codex Justinianus, Journal on Firearms and Public Policy 16: 163-200. Ward, Cynthia V. 2015. “Stand Your Ground” and Self-Defense. American Journal of Criminal Law 42: 89-138. Wells, Annie. 2008. Home on the Gun Range: Discussing Whether Kansas's New Stand Your Ground Statute will Protect Gun Owners who Use Disproportionate Force in Self-Defense. University of Kansas Law Review 56: 983-1004. Williamson, J. Dave. 2012. Untying the Hands of Prosecutors in “Stand Your Ground” States: Rethinking the Jury Charge on Reasonableness for Altercations Occurring Outside One's Home. John Marshall Law Journal 6: 243-282. Wolf, Jacob. 2015. On Death's Doorstep: The Racially Stratified Impact of the Michigan Self-Defense Act and Why Race-Centric Advocacy is not the Answer. Columbia Journal of Race and Law 5: 53-78. Wright, James D., Joseph F. Sheley., and M. Dwayne Smith. 1992. Kids, Guns, And Killing Fields. Society 30: 84-89. Younts, Tyler. 2014. North Carolina's New Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, And Other Firearms Laws Changes. Charlotte Law Review 5: 267-300. Zbrzeznj, Lydia. 2012. Florida's Controversial Gun Policy: Liberally Permitting Citizens to Arm Themselves and Broadly Recognizing the Right to Act in Self-Defense. Florida Coastal Law Review 13: 231-275. Zitter, Jay M. 2012. Construction and Application of 'Make My Day' and 'Stand Your Ground' Statutes, American Law Reports ALR6th. Roxin, Claus (2006). Strafrecht, AT/1, 4. Aufl., Munchen: Beck, cop. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21457 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 2014年於台北市曾經發生一起「勇夫護孕妻案」。其事實略為一名竊賊侵入被告(夫)及其妻之屋內行竊,遭被告壓制過久而窒息死亡。案經臺灣士林地方法院審理,最終判處被告犯過失致死罪,處有期徒刑參月,如易科罰金,以新臺幣壹仟元折算壹日,緩刑貳年。此案引發輿論對判決的大力批判,其中更有呼籲我國應該引入美國法上堡壘原則者。本文便是以此案為契機,對美國法上堡壘原則加以研究。本文有兩大重心,其一在於釐清何謂美國法上的堡壘原則,並關注堡壘原則近年來之發展,其二則聚焦於美國法上堡壘原則能給我國正當防衛法帶來何等之啟示。
在第二章,本文先對美國判例法上堡壘原則加以定位,並考察其源流以及中心思想,再藉由Beard. v. U.S.案說明美國部分州在19世紀興起的美式真男人原則。章末則介紹美國判例法上向來在堡壘原則適用上的爭議。在第三章,主要係在研究美國近年來有關家宅防衛以及自衛相關法規的最新發展。主要係以2005年由佛羅里達州所掀起的立∕修法潮為中心,介紹就地防衛法與堡壘原則有何不同,以及就地防衛法之內容與爭議。最後再整理美國各州現今之自衛法規範現狀。 在第四章,本文回到前開我國本土案例──勇夫護孕妻案,將案件事實、法院見解以及學說上的相關見解加以爬梳整理。第五章則首先將美國法上的自衛、堡壘原則以及我國的正當防衛加以比較,其次再指出我國刑法規定的不足以及勇夫護孕妻案判決的可惜之處。最後,本文將結合我國既有實務見解(掃把擊賊案、追打入屋案)以及美國法上堡壘原則的兩大脈絡,嘗試於沒有修法的前提之下針對家宅內正當防衛做出適當的調整。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | There was a controversial case, which was also known as “brave husband case”, in Taipei in 2014. The fact was that a burglar broke into the house of the defendant and his pregnant wife, and was later killed by the defendant. The defendant did not notice the abnormality of the burglar's body and suppressed the burglar for too long, causing the burglar’s asphyxia. The accused was found guilty but given a suspended sentence. This verdict has aroused strong criticism, and among these opinions there was a kind of view calling on Taiwan should consider to introduce the castle doctrine from the United States. This thesis takes this case as an opportunity to research the castle doctrine in the United States, and has two main focuses. One is to explain what is the castle doctrine, and pay attention to the development of it in the United States in recent years, and the other is to focus on what kind of inspiration the castle doctrine can bring to Taiwan’s self-defense law.
In the second chapter, this thesis firstly studies the castle doctrine in American case law, and examines its origin and central idea, and then explains the American true man doctrine that arose in the 19th century in some states through Beard v. United States. At the end of the chapter, the author introduces the controversy on the application of castle doctrine in American case law. In the third chapter, the author mainly studies the latest development of self-defense laws in the United States in recent years. Focusing on the recent wave of stand your ground law legislation which was started from Florida in 2005, this thesis introduces the differences between the stand your ground law and the castle doctrine, as well as the contents and disputes of the stand your ground law. Finally, this thesis summarizes the present situation of self-defense laws in every States. In the fourth chapter, this thesis returns to the local case of Taiwan - “brave husband case”, organize the case facts, court opinions, and scholar views. The fifth chapter firstly compares the self-defense law in the United States and Taiwan, and then points out the deficiency of Taiwan’s self-defense law and the inadequacies of the judgment of the brave husband case. Finally, this thesis combines the existing opinions of Taiwan’s court and the main idea of castle doctrine in the United States, trying to make appropriate adjustments for the self-defense law's application within defendant's home under the premise of no statutes amendment. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:34:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R05a21054-1.pdf: 2286948 bytes, checksum: 466cde86f712bb384e2ab41afb3e56b5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 研究方法 3 第二章 美國判例法上之堡壘原則 6 第一節 堡壘原則 6 第一項 自衛以及撤退義務概說 6 第一款 自衛(Self-Defense) 8 第一目 非襲擊者 9 第二目 面臨非法襲擊 10 第三目 威脅的現在或迫近性 10 第四目 合理確信 11 第五目 必要性 12 第六目 合比例性 12 第二款 必要性與撤退義務 12 第一目 致命武力與非致命武力 13 第二目 必要性的判斷 14 第三目 撤退義務與撤退至牆法則 15 第二項 堡壘原則作為撤退義務的例外 17 第三項 堡壘原則之源流與家的特殊性 19 第四項 自衛與對財產的保護、保護居住地、保護第三人之區別 23 第二節 Beard v. United States案 26 第一項 案例事實簡介 26 第二項 聯邦最高法院見解 28 第三項 True Man Doctrine 29 第一款 緣起 29 第二款 案例──Erwin v. State案 31 第三款 防止濫用的保險機制 34 第四項 Beard v. United States案的模糊 35 第五項 Beard v. United States案之後聯邦最高法院的見解 37 第三節 美國判例法下堡壘原則的相關問題 39 第一項 地點問題──堡壘的擴張 39 第一款 住宅以外的房地 39 第二款 車輛 41 第三款 其他地點上的擴張 42 第二項 客人(Guest)、受邀者(Invitee)爭議 43 第三項 共同居住者(Cohabitant)爭議 45 第四項 小結 49 第三章 立法化:以2005佛羅里達州掀起之立法潮為中心 51 第一節 槍枝與美國 53 第二節 佛羅里達州法:就地防衛法 55 第一項 何謂就地防衛法 55 第二項 就地防衛法與堡壘原則 55 第三項 佛羅里達州就地防衛法 56 第一款 2005年的初次立法 57 第二款 歷次修正之概要 63 第一目 2014年之修正 63 第二目 2017年的修正 65 第三款 就地防衛法生效後的爭議案例舉隅 66 第四項 佛羅里達州就地防衛法之贊成與反對 68 第一款 贊成的見解 68 第二款 反對的見解 69 第三節 美國模範刑法典 72 第一項 何謂美國模範刑法典及其意義 72 第二項 美國模範刑法典關於自衛使用武力規範 73 第四節 其他各州的狀態 75 第一項 加州──實際上的就地防衛 75 第二項 紐約州──堡壘原則立法化 75 第三項 俄亥俄州──擴張的堡壘原則立法 76 第四項 科羅拉多州──愉快一日法(Make My Day Law) 81 第五項 阿拉斯加州──迂迴的就地防衛立法 82 第六項 小結 83 第五節 堡壘原則的實質滅亡? 92 第六節 就地防衛之後十年:是否值得台灣借鑑? 95 第四章 勇夫護孕妻案實務及學說見解 97 第一節 案例事實 97 第二節 被告主張 98 第三節 終審法院見解 99 第一項 構成要件層次 99 第二項 違法性層次:可否依正當防衛規定阻卻違法 100 第一款 有無存在現時不法侵害 100 第二款 必要性與權益均衡之相當性 102 第三項 罪責層次 104 第四項 罪名之擇定與切割觀察的連動 104 第五項 小結 107 第四節 學說見解 107 第一項 整體觀察:延展型防衛過當 107 第二項 切割觀察一行為說 108 第三項 認為實務見解架空必要性 110 第四項 從德國法正當防衛法制發展脈絡出發的觀點 111 第五項 認為被告欠缺故意或過失應獲無罪判決的見解 112 第五章 堡壘原則對我國法的啟示 115 第一節 在美國法下勇夫護孕妻案的結論 115 第二節 檢討我國正當防衛法出現的問題 116 第一項 我國法上正當防衛與美國法上自衛之比較 116 第一款 必要性審查 116 第一目 我國法與美國法在必要性定義上的相似 116 第二目 我國實務判斷必要性要件時遭致的批評 117 第二款 衡平性審查與合比例性要求 119 第三款 退避義務與撤退義務 122 第四款 防衛過當與不完美的自衛 127 第二項 未考量家的特殊性 128 第一款 我國刑法承認家的特殊性 128 第一目 侵入住居罪 129 第二目 違法搜索罪 130 第三目 加重竊盜罪與加重強制性交猥褻罪 131 第四目 加重重利罪 132 第五目 小結 132 第二款 正當防衛之規定未考量家的特殊性 132 第三款 本案承審法院錯失表態機會 135 第一目 較早期的實務見解 135 第二目 首次提及堡壘原則一詞的判決 138 第三目 勇夫護孕妻案承審法院錯失良機 139 第三節 嘗試在不修正法律的前提下重新檢視勇夫護孕妻案 143 第一項 行為數認定 143 第二項 罪名的選擇與構成要件層次 144 第三項 正當防衛之檢視 147 第一款 有無現時不法侵害 147 第二款 必要性 148 第一目 放寬必要性作法的理由 148 第二目 放寬的程度 149 第三目 對勇夫之壓制行為的判斷 151 第四項 罪責 152 第一款 期待可能性 152 第一目 理論依據 152 第二目 爭議問題 154 第二款 本文見解:家宅內防衛作為超法規阻卻罪責事由 155 第一目 本文對於期待可能性固有爭議所採取之立場 155 第二目 將防衛家宅納入期待可能性考量 157 第三目 勇夫案的檢視 159 第五項 第一脈絡與第二脈絡是否有所衝突 160 第四節 結語 162 參考文獻 164 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 美國法上堡壘原則對我國正當防衛法的啟示 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Inspiration of Castle Doctrine in the United States to Taiwan’s Self-Defense Law | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃士軒,蘇凱平 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 自衛,堡壘原則,撤退義務,真男人原則,就地防衛,正當防衛,必要性,期待可能性, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Self-Defense,Castle Doctrine,Duty to Retreat,True Man Doctrine,Stand Your Ground,Necessity,Zumutbarkeit, | en |
dc.relation.page | 175 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201902341 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-08-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.23 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。