臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：公民參與刑事審判下公平法院理念之研究--從參與審判法庭組成與表決法則論起
書刊名：東海大學法學研究
作者：莊杏茹
作者(外文)：Chuang, Hsing Ju
出版日期：2014
卷期：44
頁次：頁117-184
主題關鍵詞：公民參與刑事審判；正當法律程序；公平審判；比例原則；附理由拒卻；不附理由拒卻；無罪推定；二重危險；不對稱上訴；Citizen participation in criminal trial；Due process of law；Fair trial；Principle of proportionality；Challenge for cause；Peremptory challenge；Presumption of innocence；Double jeopardy；Asymmetric appeal
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:163
  • 點閱點閱:83
無罪推定被承認為普世價值，如何合理詮釋，使之具體實踐，並受接納是刑事審判的重要使命。透過公民參與刑事審判，使公民面對開示於審判庭的適格證據，與法官共同合議，依合理的表決原則，踐行正當程序，擔保無罪推定，其意義是參與人數以大數法則表現客觀擔保。參審法庭之組成與參審員職權定位問題，反應國家格局，也看出各法域考量的司法利益不同，法定參與人數使證據評價有效，以表決原則擔保判決可受確信，有其實踐意義。我國刑事審判方略，應本於國家、社會與個人如何認識、實踐公平審判與無罪推定的重點，依比例原則規範公民參與人數、表決方式，定位公民參與刑事審判制度，尊重社會價值對公義判決證據評價之認定，權利救濟之衡平，與被害人及其家屬社會心理療癒過程中面對司法的態度，本於憲法第8條正當程序內涵，使第一審獲判無罪的被告不再暴露於國家追訴風險之下，當是我國刑事訴訟第二審再造應思考的問題，更是國家司法聯結公民社會實踐無罪推定的合理基礎。
The presumption of innocence is widely recognized as universal value. It is altogether important when the precisely interpretation and practice of the principle came to be accepted in criminal trial. Tailoring the system for citizen participation in criminal trial, evidence would be handled best before mixed court that judges and citizens made legal decision by reasonable voting rule with deliberation to safeguard the presumption of innocence and due process. It becomes particular meaningful to due process in practice, presumption of innocence together with the configuration of mixed court rational and fair trial guaranteed. Mixed court configuration and restriction of the availability of citizen participation in criminal proceedings governed by policy that may presented the various judicial interests in different jurisdictions. The issue of reasonable mixed court size and rule of voting provided reliable proof and the safeguard of trial outcome after communicative decision-making process. Our legal policy need to be conducted by the point of views on how the presumption of innocence has practiced and how the individual, society and the state acknowledged as a fair trial. The principle of proportionality must be duly concerned to regulate the issue of citizen member in mixed court and rule of voting. With citizen participation in criminal trial, policy considerations must be reexamined in different contexts including respecting the evaluating evidence of trial outcome protected by social value, right to appeal and the attitudes of victims and their family toward justice. The government should not be able to take appeals from acquittals if the mixed court is truly the rationale with guarantee of fair trial. Due process of law required its application to state, we have to consider the effects of asymmetric appeal rights for if the defendant is acquitted and the prosecution cannot appeal acquittals. The reasoned judgment from the mixed court can be regarded as supporting to reinforce presumption of innocence and has connection on the ground for reconstructing of court of appeal. Of course, it well established the alliance between jurisdiction and society in the social practice of adjudication.
期刊論文
1.Jackson, John D.、Kovalev, Nikolay P.(2006)。Lay Adjudication and Human Rights in Europe。Colum. J. Eur. L.，13，83-123。  new window
2.三井誠、陳運財(20100400)。日本檢察審查會制度。法學新論，21，13-19。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.陳運財(20130400)。論國民參與刑事審判與上訴制度之變革。月旦法學，215，167-185。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.後藤昭、林裕順、李怡修(201311)。裁判員審判事實認定爭議之上訴救濟。月旦法學雜誌，222，161-171。  延伸查詢new window
5.Bovel, Emil J. III(2008)。Preserving the Value of Unanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in Anti-Deadlock Instructions。Geo. LJ.，97，251-288。  new window
6.Damaska, Mirjan(1997)。Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited。Cardozo J. Int'l and Comp. L.，5，25-39。  new window
7.Hans, Valerie P.(2001)。The Power of Twelve: The Impact of Jury Size and Unanimity on Civil Jury Decision Making。Del. L. Rev.，4，1-31。  new window
8.Heinz, Judith(1993)。Note And Comments: Peremptory Challenges in Criminal Cases: A Comparison of Regulation in the United States, England, and Canada。Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L.J.，16，201-244。  new window
9.Hoffman, Morris B.(2003)。The Case for Jury Sentencing。Duke Law Journal，52(5)，951-1010。  new window
10.Horwitz, Barbara L.(1993)。The Extinction of The Peremptory Challenge: What Will The Jury System Lose By Its Demise?。U. Cin. L. Rev.，61，1391-1439。  new window
11.Jackson, Shontavia J.(2006)。Comment: Peremptory Challenge: Striking Down Discrimination in Arkansas's Jury Selection Process。Ark. L. Rev.，59，93-124。  new window
12.Khanna, Vikramaditya S.(2002)。Double Jeopardy5s Asymmetric Appeal Rights: What Purpose Do They Serve?。B.U L. Rev.，82，341-404。  new window
13.King, Nancy J.(1999)。The American Criminal。Law and Contemp. Prob.，62，41-67。  new window
14.King, Nancy J.(1993)。Postconviction Review of Jury Discrimination: Measuring the Effects of Juror Race on Jury Decisions。Mich. L. Rev.，92，63-130。  new window
15.Klevorick, Alvin K.、Rothschild, Michael(1979)。A Model of the Jury Decision Process。J. Legal Stud.，8，141-164。  new window
16.Leib, Ethan J.(2006)。Supermajoritarianism and the American Criminal Jury。Hastings Const. L.Q.，33，141-196。  new window
17.Leib, Ethan J.(2008)。Commentary: A Comparison of Criminal Jury Decision Rules in Democratic Countries。Ohio St. J. Crim. L.，5，629-644。  new window
18.Leipold, Andrew D.(1998)。Constitutionalizing Jury Selection in Criminal Cases: A Critical Evaluation。Geo. L. J.，86，945-1009。  new window
19.Mckillop, Bron(2006)。Review of Convictions after Jury Trials: The New French Jury Court of Appeal。Syndey L. Rev.，28，343-358。  new window
20.Poulin, Anne Bowen(1994)。The Jury: The Criminal Justice System's Different Voice。U. Cin. L. Rev.，62，1377-1437。  new window
21.Primus, Richard A.(1997)。When Democracy Is Not Self-Government: Toward A Defense of The Unanimity Rule For Criminal Juries。Cardozo L. Rev.，18，1417-1457。  new window
22.Pizzi, William T.、Hoffman, Morris B.(2001)。Jury Selection Errors on Appeal。Am. Crim. L. Rev.，38，1931-1441。  new window
23.Rose, Mary R.(2003)。Symposium: III. The Jury In Practice: A Voir Dire of Voir Dire: Listening To Jurors' Views Regarding The Peremptory Challenge。Chi-Kent L. Rev.，78，1061-1098。  new window
24.R. L. M.(1972)。Criminal Procedure-Majority Verdicts in Criminal Trials。Term. L. Rev.，40，91-99。  new window
25.Saks、Marti(1997)。A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Jury Size. Law and Human Behavior Law and Hum。Behave.，21，451-467。  new window
26.Schuller, Regina、Vidmar, Neil(2011)。Symposium on Comparative Jury Systems: The Canadian Criminal Jury。Chi-Kent L. Rev.，86，497-532。  new window
27.Schwartz, Edward P.、Schwartz, Warren F.(1992)。Symposium Positive Political Theory And Public Law: Decision Making by Juries Under Unanimity and Supermajority Voting Rules。Geo. L. J.，80，775-807。  new window
28.Schwartz, Edward P.、Schwartz, Warren F.(2000)。And So Say Some of Us .What To Do When Jurors Disagree。S. Cal. Interdis. L. J.，9，429-463。  new window
29.Shavell, Steven(1995)。The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction。The Journal of Legal Studies，24，379-426。  new window
30.Shaw, Stephen I.(1986)。Case Note: Batson v. Kentucky: The Court's Response to the Problem of Discriminatory Use of Peremptory Challenges。Case W. Res.，36，581-603。  new window
31.Siebert, Arielle(1999)。Batson v. Kentucky: Application to Whites and the Effect On the Peremptory Challenge System。Colum. J.L. and Soc. Probs.，32，307-330。  new window
32.Silverman, Phyllis Novick(1983)。Comment: Survey of The Law of Peremptory Challenge: Uncertainty in The Criminal Law。U. Pitt. L. Rev.，44，673-706。  new window
33.Swift, Joshua E.(1993)。Note: Batson's Invidious Legacy: Discriminatory Juror Exclusion And The "Intuitive" Peremptory Challenge。Cornell L. Rev.，78，336-369。  new window
34.Thaman, Stephen C.(1999)。Europe's New Jury Systems: The Cases of Spain and Russia。Law and Contemporary Problems，62(2)，233-259。  new window
35.Thomas, George C. III(1988)。An Elegant Theory of Double Jeopardy。U. L. Rev.，111，827-885。  new window
36.Thomas, George C. III、Pollack, Barry S.(1992)。Rethinking Guilt, Juries, And Jeopardy。Mich. L. Rev.，91，1-33。  new window
37.Westen, Peter K.(1980)。The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences。Mich. L. Rev.，78，1001-1065。  new window
38.Williams, Cynthia A.(1990)。Note, Jury Source Representativeness and the Use of Voter Registration Lists。N. Y U L. Rev.，65，590-634。  new window
39.Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak(2007)。Exploring Lay Participation in Legal Decision-Making: Lessons From Mixed Tribunals。Cornell International Law Journal，40(2)，429-453。  new window
40.陳運財(20030900)。刑事訴訟制度之改革及其課題。月旦法學，100，73-90。new window  延伸查詢new window
41.陳運財(20100500)。國民參與刑事審判之研究--兼評日本裁判員制度。月旦法學，180，131-149。new window  延伸查詢new window
42.陳運財(20110100)。不對稱上訴制度之初探。檢察新論，9，65-87。new window  延伸查詢new window
43.何賴傑(20121100)。從德國參審制談司法院人民觀審制。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，41(特刊)，1189-1243。new window  延伸查詢new window
44.Page, Antony(2005)。Batson's Blind-Spot: Unconscious Stereotyping and The Peremptory Challenge。B.U.L. Rev.，85，156-262。  new window
會議論文
1.陳運財(200904)。刑事上訴制度之改革--由日本法論我國第二審上訴之結構。中央研究院法律學研究所（籌備處）出版。285-288。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳運財(201201)。日本裁判員制度的觀察報告--兼評人民觀審試行條例草案。第67屆司法節學術研討會，司法院主辦 。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Vidmar, Neil、Hans, Valerie P.(2007)。American Juries: The Verdict。Prometheus Books。  new window
2.Jackson, John D.、Summers, Sarah J.(2012)。The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions。  new window
3.Malsch, Marijke(2009)。Democracy in the Courts Lay Participation in European Criminal Justice Systems。  new window
4.陳樸生(19970500)。刑事證據法。三民書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Langsted, Lars Bo、Garde, Peter、Greve, Vagn(2010)。Criminal Law in Denmark。  new window
6.Rothwax, Harold J.(1996)。Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice。  new window
7.Langbein, John H.(1981)。Mixed Court and Jury Court: Could the Continental Fill the American Need?。  new window
8.李學燈(1992)。證據法比較研究。臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
9.Shapiro, Martin(1981)。Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis。University of Chicago Press。  new window
其他
1.司法院。刑事訴訟改革成效評估委員會總結報告，http://www.judicial.gov.tw/revolution/judReform05.asp， 。  延伸查詢new window
2.David, B.，Rottman, ET A L.(2000)。State Court Organization 1998 278，http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/sco98.pdf。  new window
3.Joy, Chapper，Roger, Hanson(1989)。Understanding Reversible Error in Criminal Appeals Final Report 38 (National Center for State Courts 1989)，http://lawweb.colorado.edu/files/vitae/hanson.pdf。  new window
4.Lay Involvement in Adjudication。Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland，http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/law/cjr/chap7.pdf， 2000/03/30。  new window
圖書論文
1.Luca, Marafioti(2008)。Italian Criminal Procedure: A System Caught Between Two Traditions, Crime。A Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaska。  new window
2.Vidmar, Neil(2000)。Historical and Comparative Perspective on the Common Law Jury。World Jury Systems。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：385（臺灣：383，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2488187 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68284784
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上