:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:犯罪被害人及其家屬參與刑事司法程序的角色:兩難與爭議
書刊名:軍法專刊
作者:周愫嫻 引用關係林育聖 引用關係宋弘恩鄧樂維薛褘葶白鎮福呂宜芳
作者(外文):Jou, Su-syanLin, Yu-shengSung, Hung-enTeng, Le-weiSyue, Wei-tingPai, Chen-fuLu, Yi-fang
出版日期:2016
卷期:62:4
頁次:頁1-17
主題關鍵詞:被害人運動被害人陳述被害人證人量刑前調查報告假釋Victim movementVictim impact statementVictim as witnessPre-sentencing reportParole
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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:6
  • 點閱點閱:86
從參與案例審理程序、舉行當事人修復式司法會議、進行被告量刑前社會調查的各種資料分析結果中,本文認為被害人參與刑事司法程序至少可分三階段論述。在審理進行階段,被害人可作為證人,提供法庭認定犯罪事實之根據,但被害人家屬的法律角色非常有限,亦非必要。在量刑階段,法庭應先考量犯罪造成損害的通則,排除犯罪損害之不可預見性,然後再考量特殊或例外原則,此時被害人或其家屬陳述、修復式司法結果與被告量刑前社會調查報告可納入量刑評價之材料之一。法庭不能以被害人或其家屬陳述為量刑評價主要或優先考量理由,但可藉此收集更為充足的資訊或材料,增加量刑的正當性。至於假釋階段,收容人的再犯風險評估是最重要的考量,被害人或其家屬陳述或不安情緒,非再犯風險評估的根據,無助於評估的準確性。但被害人或其家屬陳述,可以作為假釋委員會准駁決定後,要求通過假釋申請之收容人,附帶之應遵守事項之根據。本文認為被害人/家屬參與刑事司法程序運動,可能基於對檢察官、司法執行機關的不信任,意圖擴大社會與國家對被害人的責任,並縮小社會與國家對犯罪人犯罪的責任使然。國家若欲使被害人參與量刑程序,應有三作為:被告量刑前社會調查報告、被害人/家屬陳述標準化程序、法制化修復式司法會議結果等配套措施。
This paper examines the dilemma and conflicts associated with the roles of a victim's family in the modern criminal justice system of Taiwan. We draw upon an empirical investigation of a criminal court case which involved the killing of a police officer. The study also bases on its analysis of the results of restorative justice meetings with some of those accused of the crime and the victim's family, and the analysis of associated pre-sentence reports. The paper argues that at the trial phase, victims serve as 'witness' - providing factual information about the crime. However, victims' family members or friends have little or no role at this stage. At the sentencing phase, judges must normally apply general penal principles, but exceptionally may take into account victims' family impact statements, with the outcome of restorative justice meetings, and pre-sentencing reports as part of their sentencing decision-making process. The paper argues that victims' family impact statements should be best used to enhance the understanding of the nature and harm of the crime, rather than weighed as part of a calculus of aggravating or mitigating factors. It further argues that given that the parole decision is essentially a risk-based assessment in which there can be little purpose served by including victims' family statements at the parole phase. However, parole boards could profitably use them in relation to release conditions. In conclusion, it is recommended that courts in respect of certain selected crimes: (1) ensure properly conducted and compulsory pre-sentence reports; (2) establish standardized procedures for the use of impact statements; (3) formally take into account of the outcomes of restorative justice meetings when establishing sentence. 相關文獻 : Hyread期刊 Ericdata高教 國圖期刊 國圖博碩士論文 s paper examines the dilemma and conflicts associated with the roles of a victim's family in the modern criminal justice system of Taiwan. We draw upon an empirical investigation of a criminal court case which involved the killing of a police officer. The study also bases on its analysis of the results of restorative justice meetings with some of those accused of the crime and the victim's family, and the analysis of associated pre-sentence reports. The paper argues that at the trial phase, victims serve as 'witness' - providing factual information about the crime. However, victims' family members or friends have little or no role at this stage. At the sentencing phase, judges must normally apply general penal principles, but exceptionally may take into account victims' family impact statements, with the outcome of restorative justice meetings, and pre-sentencing reports as part of their sentencing decision-making process. The paper argues that victims' family impact statements should be best used to enhance the understanding of the nature and harm of the crime, rather than weighed as part of a calculus of aggravating or mitigating factors. It further argues that given that the parole decision is essentially a risk-based assessment in which there can be little purpose served by including victims' family statements at the parole phase. However, parole boards could profitably use them in relation to release conditions. In conclusion, it is recommended that courts in respect of certain selected crimes: (1) ensure properly conducted and compulsory pre-sentence reports; (2) establish standardized procedures for the use of impact statements; (3) formally take into account of the outcomes of restorative justice meetings when establishing sentence.
期刊論文
1.李艾倫(20130700)。最高法院生死辯:死刑案件三審言詞辯論。全國律師,17(7),27-30。  延伸查詢new window
2.錢建榮(20130700)。最高法院死刑量刑辯論淪為「異鄉人」的審判!。全國律師,17(7),22-26。  延伸查詢new window
3.謝協昌(20081200)。論犯罪被害人之刑事訴訟程序參與權之發展。刑事法雜誌,52(6),87-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.高烊輝(20130700)。邱合成案死刑量刑辯論面面觀。全國律師,17(7),40-49。  延伸查詢new window
5.張麗卿(20060600)。憲法解釋與訴訟權之保障--以釋字五六九號為中心。東海大學法學研究,24,1-48。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.黃朝義(200501)。訴訟制度:第三講犯罪被害人參與訴訟制度。月旦法學教室,27,93-100。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.法務部(2014)。修復式司法試行方案成效評估暨案件評估指標之研究報告。  延伸查詢new window
2.Roberts, J.、Manikis, M.(2011)。Victim Personal Statement: A Review of Empirical Research。  new window
圖書
1.Braithwaite, J.(1989)。Crime, Shame, and Reintegration。Cambridge:Cambridge University Press。  new window
2.司法院(2011)。人民觀審制度調查研究。  延伸查詢new window
3.許福生、林裕順、盧映潔、黃蘭瑛、張錦麗(2013)。犯罪被害人保護之政策與法制。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
4.Alexander, E. K.、Lord, J. H.(1994)。Impact Statements: A Victim's Right To Speak: A Nation's Responsibility To Listen。Washington, DC:National Institute of Justice。  new window
其他
1.(2002)。國家犯罪被害調查報告,http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf。  new window
2.(2015)。「量刑改革專區」說明沿革,http://www.judicial.gov.tw/work/work02/work02-40.asp。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.林裕順(2013)。犯罪被害人在司法程序之權益保障。犯罪被害人保護之政策與法制。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.von Hirsch, A.、Jareborg, N.、Ashworth, A.(2005)。Gauging Crime Seriousness: A 'Living Standard' Conception of Criminal Harm。Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the principles。Oxford:Oxford University Press。  new window
3.Spencer, J.(2010)。Victims and prosecutors。Hearing the victim: Adversarial Justice, Victims and the State。Devon:Willan Publishing。  new window
4.林裕順(2010)。刑事程序被害人權力保護。基本人權與司法改革。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
5.許福生(2013)。犯罪被害人保護之整體政策規劃。犯罪被害人保護之政策與法制。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE