從法律敘事研究到我國刑事案件中的敘事

Abstract

一般認為刑事訴訟之重要目的之一為發現實體真實；而刑事訴訟的進行，則是由檢察官提出證據及說服法院、被告及辯護人削弱起訴事實的可信性，經過雙方多次的攻防後，再由審判者依照各項事實主張，以所有具關聯性的證據綜合判斷該事實主張的蓋然性後，決定犯罪事實的全貌。但是，若我們都是以敘事形式理解人類行為的意義，則「事實」是被建構的，且我們評估一段故事之可信性時，也會有不同的判斷標準。 本文介紹美國法律敘事研究中有關法庭場景的論著，關注其中的審判活動進行與審判者認定犯罪事實的方式，並進一步討論敘事融貫性的意涵。最後，回到我國的刑事案件，本文以湯英伸案為對象，分析本案起訴書、歷審判決書與報章雜誌述說此案故事時的視角、敘述聲音、時間安排、情節內容與人物形象，再嘗試探討不同案件故事對於湯英伸應受罪刑的影響。

It is generally believed that one of the primary purposes of criminal litigation is to find the objective reality. In criminal procedures, a prosecutor must offer evidence to persuade the court that the defendant is guilty, whilst the defendant and attorney seek to reduce the credibility of the crime that the defendant is being charged with. After the oral arguments have been finished, the trial judge should review and weigh all of the evidence that is used to support all factual claims and then decide the probability of each fact relating to this case before he or she decides what really happened in this case. Yet given that people tend to grasp the meaning of human behavior through narratives, it follows that all “facts” are constructed. Moreover, people apply different criteria in credibility judgments when listening to a story. This paper explores the research of narration and narrative in legal discourse by focusing a number of treatises on courtroom scenes, especially how criminal trials are held and how a judge determines the facts of a criminal case. Furthermore, this paper discusses the significance of coherence. Lastly, this paper explores the case of Ying-Shen Tang, a notorious case in Taiwan, by critically examining the indictment, verdicts, and a broad array of reports and stories published in newspapers and magazines, all of which were written in different perspectives with different timelines, storylines, and character portraits. This serves as an effort to explore the impacts of stories told by a slew of narrators on the verdict and sentencing of Ying-Shen Tang.