通姦成文法之立法目的，無非在於婚姻關係之維護及家庭之保護上，惟此法律只奠基於「道德」或「宗教信仰」。國內向來對於通姦罪之刑事處罰，均以比例原則為基礎，惟本文自另一層面－即自憲法隱私權與個人自主之角度切入，提供不同面向之探討，並藉由美國Oliverson v. West Valley City及Lawrence v. Texas二則案例之探究及分析，用以詮釋、印證通姦罪之刑事處罰，無論在美國或臺灣，均有違憲疑慮，應予以除罪化。亦即，倘通姦成文法與隱私權與個人自主之憲法價值相互權衡，其實經不起檢驗－私生活之隱私自主決定權之選擇，應獲得尊重，立法者實在不應藉由將通姦行為入罪化之方式，試圖操控個人命運及其性慾望。換言之，關於私人合意下之通相姦行為，法律並不具有任何重大迫切之政府利益，足以正當化其窺視並介入當事人之私生活領域。

The legislative purpose of adultery statute law is the maintenance of marital relationship and protection of family, but this law is the reason only based on the moral or religion. Regarding the punishment of adultery, Critical discussion of domestic scholars in the past is usually centred on the principle of proportionality. However, this article intends to another level-focus on the privacy rights and personal autonomy, to discussion of different aspects.And by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision-Oliverson v. The West Valley City and Lawrence v. Texas two cases to explore and analyze, and for interpret and prove that adultery's criminal penalties, both in the United States and Taiwan, are unconstitutional doubts should be decriminalization. That is, if adultery statute law compared with constitutional values privacy and personal autonomy, in fact, it should not withstand constitutional scrutiny-privacy rights and personal autonomy should be respected.The government cannot control people's destiny and sexual desire by making their private sexual conduct a crime-adultery. Their privacy rights and personal autonomy under the Due Process Clause gives people the full rights to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. In other words, law does not have any compelling government interest to justify its spy and involved parties on private consensual adultery behavior.