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：從公民參與刑事審判之社會價值論參與態樣--比較法之觀點
書刊名：政大法學評論
作者：莊杏茹
作者(外文)：Chuang, Hsing-ju
出版日期：2015
卷期：140
頁次：頁1-81
主題關鍵詞：公民權；正當法律程序；公平審判；公民參與刑事審判；比較法學觀點；陪審制；參審制；當事人進行模式；日本裁判員參加刑事審判法；溝通式司法；Civil right；Due process of law；Fair trial；Citizen participation in criminal trial；Perspective on comparative legal studies；Jury；Mixed court；Adversary system；Saiban-in Act；Communicative legal system
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:117
當代刑事司法受法系傳統與社會價值影響至深，精神物質文明進步，與封建高權壓迫不同，因此我國在刑事訴訟改革進程中研議公民參與刑事審判，應以公民權實質平等之參與精神為法理，思考參與態樣之有效性而為抉擇。陪審由公民獨立認定事實，判斷有罪無罪，裁定不受司法審查，無須說理，如何救濟，必為我國法律傳統之重大挑戰。蓋程序參與、事實認定、量刑判斷，密不可分，若由公民與法官同組合議庭，形成溝通式司法，就制度可行性而言，有助審判活動效益，妥速審理，值得參考，我國公民參與刑事審判之態樣應強調公民參與擔保正當法律程序，公平審判之社會價值，定位公民參與刑事審判之目的功能，使審判妥速，復增信度與效度，有不可或缺之司法利益。
The modern criminal justice system has been formed by social culture and the tradition of variant legal models. With the development of civilization, the meaning of different methods of incorporating the lay voice into criminal justice systems differs from its suppression in traditional feudal society. Criminal procedural reform also implicates an association between lay involvement in a particular legal system and democracy. Equal participation involving civil rights provided the context of legal theory in constructing a system of citizen participation in criminal trials. An analysis of lay involvement should thus consider the influence of institutional, social and culture factors within a given legal system, as well as the availability and effectiveness of juries and mixed courts in legal practice. Within the legal tradition, juries are deemed as qualified fact finders in making decisions of guilt and innocence. It is clear that the authority of the jury verdict is respected worldwide as well as manifesting the issue that a number of such verdicts have been bereft of reasoning. The context of legal remedies in traditional continental systems adopted here would also generate more challenges across civil law traditions. Nevertheless, the mixed court practice has enhanced lay authority in certain significant respects that enables citizens to participate in the criminal justice system. This would also be helpful in adopting a feasible legal system to expedite trials. Especially, right and obligation need to be balanced in competing equities, fact-finding, participation in procedures and deciding an appropriate sentence as these are particularly valuable for citizens who participate in criminal trials for forming a communicative legal system. To overcome the fear of oppression imposed by governments, concerted efforts must be aimed at the practice of civil rights by introducing citizen participation in criminal trials in Taiwan. Relevant to the point, the features of such a system would serve to ensure that social values represented by citizen participation would safeguard the rights of due process and a fair trial. The system design would specify the function and goal of supporting citizen participation in criminal trial and would also enhance the validity and efficiency of trials by enhancing the legal system with social values. In particular, certain judicial interest can be drawn upon to provide fair evidentiary and procedural communication by judges and citizens.
期刊論文
1.Doran, Sean、Jackson, John D.、Seigel, Michael L.(1995)。Rethinking Adversariness in Nonjury Criminal Trials。Am. J. Crim. L.，23，1-5。  new window
2.Katsuta, Takuya(2010)。Japan's Rejection of the American Criminal Jury。Am. J. Comp. L.，58，497+509。  new window
3.Hans, Valerie P.(2002)。U.S. Jury Reform: The Active Jury and the Adversarial Ideal。St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev.，21，85-86。  new window
4.Leib, Ethan J.(2008)。A Comparison of Criminal Jury Decision Rules in Democratic Countries。Ohio St. J.Crim. L.，5，629。  new window
5.Fukurai, Hiroshi(2007)。The Rebirth of Japan’ s Petit Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems: A Cross-National Analysis of Legal Consciousness and the Lay Participatory Experience in Japan and the U.S.。Cornell Int’l L. J.，40，315。  new window
6.Kiss, Lester W.(1999)。Reviving the Criminal Jury in Japan。Law & Contemp. Probs.，62，261-284。  new window
7.三井誠、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
8.Jackson, John D.(2001)。Paradoxes of Lay and Professional Decision Making in Common Law Criminal Systems。INT’L REV. PENAL L.，72，579。  new window
9.王寶輝(20110100)。從司法文化窺探臺灣司法倫理--淺談臺灣司法反思能力。月旦法學，188，93-116。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.陳運財(20040600)。論日本刑事司法制度之改革。東海大學法學研究，20，113-151。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.陳恭平、黃國昌、林常青(20110601)。臺灣人民對於國民參與審判之態度--以2011年《紛爭解決行為實證研究》預試調查結果為基礎。臺灣法學雜誌，177，15-27。  延伸查詢new window
12.Poulin, Anne Bowen(1994)。The Jury: The Criminal Justice System's Different Voice。U. Cin. L. Rev.，62，1377-1437。  new window
13.井上正仁、陳運財(1999)。日本刑事訴訟法當事人進行主義之採行及其發展。法學叢刊，44(2)，1-33。  延伸查詢new window
14.Landsman, Stephan(1990)。The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England。Cornell Law Review，75(2)，497-609。  new window
15.後藤昭、林裕順、李怡修(20131100)。裁判員制度事實認定爭議之上訴救濟。月旦法學，222，161-171。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.中村孝義(200908)。ボアソナード刑事訴訟法典草案。立命館法學，2=324，190-383。  延伸查詢new window
17.中村宗雄(192707)。陪審制度と其公判の機微。早稻田法學，1(1)，1-28。  延伸查詢new window
18.佐藤文哉(200401)。裁判員に何を期待するか。法の支配，132，444。  延伸查詢new window
19.岡原昌男(194304)。『陪審法ノ停止ニ關スル法律』に就て。法曹會雜誌，21(4)，10-24。  延伸查詢new window
20.Bowman, Gregory W.(1993)。Supreme Court Review: Fifth Amendment-Substantial Exculpatory Evidence, Prosecutorial Misconduct and Grand Jury Proceedings: A Broadening of Prosecutorial Discretion: United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735 (1992)。J. CMM. L. and CMMNLOGY，83，718。  new window
21.Diamond, Shari Seidman、Vidmar, Neil(2001)。Comment: Jury Room Ruminations on Forbidden Topics。Va. L. Rev.，87，1857。  new window
22.Diesen, Christian(2001)。The Advantages and Disadvantages of Lay Judges from a Swedish Perspective。Int, L Rev. Penal L.，72，313。  new window
23.Dobrovolskaia, Anna(2010)。Japan’s Past Experiences with the Institution of Jury Service。Asian-Pacific L. and Pol’y，12，1。  new window
24.Dripps, Donald A.(1996)。People v. Simposon: Perspectives on the Implications for the Criminal Justice System: Relvant but Prejudicial Exculpatory Evidence: Rationality Versus Jury Trial and the Right to Put on a Defense。S. CAL. L. Rev.，69，1389。  new window
25.Foote, Daniel H.(1992)。From Japan's Death Row to Freedom。Pac. Rim L. and POL'Y. J.，1，11。  new window
26.Garde, Peter(2001)。The Danish Jury。Int'L. Rev. Penal L.，72，87。  new window
27.Ibusuki, Makoto(2010)。Quo Vadis? First Year Inspection to Japanese Mixed Jury Trial。Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal，12，24-54。  new window
28.Kemmitt, Chris(2006)。Function Over Form: Reviving the Criminal Jury's Historical Role as a Sentencing Body。U. Mica J. L. Reform，40，94。  new window
29.Kessler, Amalia D.(2005)。Our Inquisitorial Tradition: Equity Procedure, Due Process, and the Search for an Alternative to the Adversarial。CORNELL L. Rev.，90，1181。  new window
30.Landsman, Stephan(1993)。The Civil Jury in America: Scenes from an Unappreciated。HASTINGS L. J.，44，579。  new window
31.Langbein, John H.(1978)。The Criminal Trial Before Lawyers。U. CHI. L. Rev.，45，263。  new window
32.Langbein, John H.(1979)。Land Without Plea Bargaining: How the Germans Do It。Mich. L. Rev.，78，204。  new window
33.Langbein, John H.(1981)。Mixed Court and Jury Court: Could the Continental Alternative Fill the American Need?。American Bar Foundation Research Journal，6，195。  new window
34.Langbein, John H.(1996)。Historical Foundations of the Law of Evidence: A View from the Ryder Sources。Columbia Law Review，96(5)，1168-1202。  new window
35.Lempert, Richard(2001)。Citizen Participation in Judicial Decision Making: Juries, Lay Judges and Japan。St. LOUIS-WARSAW TRANS'L.，2001，1。  new window
36.Lempert, Richard O.(2001)。Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, and a Supreme Court Inspired Agenda for Jury Research。lNT'L Rev. PENAL L.，72，405-413。  new window
37.Loftus, Elizabeth F.、Greene, Edith(1984)。Twelve Angry People: The Collective Mind of the Jury。COLUM. L. Rev.，84，1425。  new window
38.Mottleey, Kimberly A.、Abrami, David、Brown, Darryl K.(2002)。The Jury’s Role in Administering Justice in the United States: An Overview of the American Criminal Jury。St. LOUIS U. Pub. L. Rev.，21，99。  new window
39.Murphy, Colleen P.(1993)。Integrating the Constitutional Authority of Civil and Criminal Juries。GEO. Wash. L. Rev.，61，724。  new window
40.Nepveu, Kate H.(2003)。Beyond "Guilty" or "Not Guilty": Giving Special Verdicts in Criminal Jury Trials。Yale L. and POL'Y Rev.，21，263。  new window
41.Simmons, Ric(2002)。Re-Examination the Grand Jury: Is There Room for Democracy in the Criminal Justices System?。B. U. L. Rev.，82，1。  new window
42.Smith, Douglas G.(1996)。The Historical and Constitutional Contexts of Jury Reform。Hofstra L. Rey.，25，377。  new window
43.Smith, Douglas G.(1997)。Structure and Functional Aspects of the Jury: Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform。Ala. L. Rev.，48，441。  new window
44.Smith, Eva(2002)。The Danish Jury and Mixed Court System。ST. LOUIS-WARSAW TRANS'L.，2001，29。  new window
45.Standen, Jeffrey(1993)。Plea Bargaining in the Shadow of the Guidelines。CAL. L. REV.，81，1471。  new window
46.Taslitz, Andrew E.(2006)。Just Right?: Assessing the Rehnquist Court's Parting Words on Criminal Justice: Temporal Adversarialism, Criminal Justice, and the Rehnquist Court: The Sluggish Life of Political Factfinding。GEO. L. J.，94，1589。  new window
47.Thaman, Stephen C.(1999)。Europe's New Jury Systems: The Case of Spain and Russia。Law and Contemp. Probs.，62，233。  new window
48.Weber, Ingram(2009)。The New Japanese Jury System: Empowering the Public, Preserving Continental Justice。East Asia Law Review，4(1)，125-176。  new window
49.Zuckerman, Adrian A. S.(1986)。Symposium: Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: I. Theories of Inference and Adjudication: Law, Fact or Justice?。B. U. L. Rev.，66，487-488。  new window
50.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
51.王兆鵬、吳從周(200106)。板橋地方法院實驗「當事人進行主義」之實證研究。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，30(5)，57-131。new window  延伸查詢new window
52.蘇俊雄(19991200)。量刑法理與法制之比較研究。法官協會雜誌，1(2)，25-56。  延伸查詢new window
53.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
54.許玉秀(20110800)。論正當法律程序原則。軍法專刊，57(4)，14-22。new window  延伸查詢new window
55.Amar, Akhil Reed(1991)。The Bill of Rights as a Constitution。Yale L. J.，100。  new window
56.黃國昌(20110700)。美國陪審制度之規範與實證。月旦法學，194，68-89。new window  延伸查詢new window
57.Alschuler, Albert W.、Deiss, Andrew G.(1994)。A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States。University of Chicago Law Review，61，867-928。  new window
58.Langbein, J. H.(1985)。The German Advantage in Civil Procedure。University of Chicago Law Review，52，826。  new window
會議論文
1.三井誠(201104)。日本之裁判員審判--運作與課題。日本裁判員制度施行現狀專題演講會議，司法院 。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.美濃部達吉、林紀東(201203)。法之本質。  延伸查詢new window
2.三谷太一郎(201308)。政治制度としての陪審制--近代日本の司法権と政党。  延伸查詢new window
3.丸田隆(1990)。陪審裁判を考える：法廷にみる日米文化比較。  延伸查詢new window
4.田中英夫(198712)。英米法研究2：デュー •プロセス。  延伸查詢new window
5.尾佐竹猛(192607)。明治文化史としての日本陪審史。  延伸查詢new window
6.Damaska, Miijan R.(1997)。Evidence Law Adrift。London：Yale University Press。  new window
7.Langbein, John H.(2005)。The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial。London：Oxford University Press。  new window
8.Langsted, Lars Bo、Garde, Peter、Greve, Vagn(2010)。CRIMINAL LAW IN DENMARK, KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL。Kluwer Law International。  new window
9.Malsch, Marijke(2009)。Democracy in the Courts Lay Participation in European Criminal Justice Systems。Ashgate Publishing。  new window
10.Vidmar, Nell(2000)。WORLD JURY SYSTEMS: A HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE COMMON LAW JURY。London：Oxford University Press。  new window
11.陳樸生(200409)。刑事訴訟法實務。自版。  延伸查詢new window
12.Damaška, Mirjan R.(1986)。The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process。Yale University Press。  new window
13.王兆鵬(2007)。美國刑事訴訟法。元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.林永謀(2010)。刑事訴訟法釋論。三民書局股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
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：1282（臺灣：1271，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1753550 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67568244
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