妨害秩序罪修法對妨害自由罪與傷害罪的實證影響

Abstract

本文試圖透過案件比例標準化與 z-score標準化兩種方法，結合中斷時間序列分析（ITS），評估修法及時間變數的效果，探討109年刑法第 149條與第150條妨害秩序罪修法對妨害自由罪與傷害罪的影響。研究結果顯示，修法對三者間的關聯性與科刑人數數量變化存在不同程度的影響，而時間變數的顯著性突顯社會長期變遷對犯罪行為的重要作用，提醒政策制定應重視長期效果，而非僅追求短期成果。 從法律經濟學角度觀察，修法旨在透過提高犯罪成本以減少犯罪率，但實際效果受到懲罰嚴厲性、概率性與即時性的影響。妨害秩序罪修法擴大了處罰範圍，但卻影響了個人法益之犯罪科刑人數，可能導致司法資源的額外消耗，此結果恐有與立法目的與預期效果不一致之虞。本文認為，刑事政策調整應審慎考量刑罰的長期影響及其對不同法益的平衡，以維護法治正當性與合理性，避免過度擴張刑罰適用範圍所帶來的負面影響。

This study employs two standardization methods, case proportion standardization and z-score standardization, combined with Interrupted Time Series (ITS) analysis, to evaluate the effects of legislative amendments and time variables. It examines the impact of the 2020 amendments to Articles 149 and 150 of the Criminal Code regarding Offenses of Interference with Public Order on Offenses Against Freedom and Offenses of Causing Injury. The results reveal varying degrees of influence of the amendments on the relationships among the three offenses and the changes in the number of convicted individuals. The significance of the time variable underscores the critical role of long-term social changes in criminal behavior, highlighting the importance of considering long-term effects in policymaking rather than focusing solely on short-term outcomes. From the perspective of law and economics, the legislative amendments aim to reduce crime rates by increasing the cost of committing crimes. However, their actual effectiveness is influenced by the severity, probability, and immediacy of punishment. While the amendments expanded the scope of punishable acts for Offenses of Interference with Public Order, they also impacted the number of convictions for crimes involving individual legal interests, potentially resulting in additional judicial resource consumption. This outcome raises concerns about inconsistencies between legislative intent and expected outcomes. This study argues that adjustments to criminal policy should carefully consider the long-term effects of penalties and their balance across different legal interests to uphold the legitimacy and reasonableness of the rule of law, avoiding the negative impacts of overly expanding the scope of criminal penalties.