| 關 鍵 詞： |
構成要件科學化；刑法卡落泥挪化；利益衡量；數位化的刑法；啟蒙 |
| 中文摘要： |
法學是有生命的，而與其發展方向，習習相關：若是正面發展方向，則能理性化，達保障人權目的；但如是負面發展，則將危害人類、劣質化，則有如倒退到中古歐洲時代的卡落泥挪化，法律竟是政治鬥爭、整肅異己的工具。
中華民國刑法於 1935 年制訂，當時依照「構成要件的體系」的條文結構安排，符合「科學化」的要求。但是其後實務發展，則偏離此項「構成要件」為基準，而將刑法當成是「統治者的工具」之過往，如臺灣的戒嚴時期。而在解嚴後，則竟然有「禁忌化」、「妖魔化」某些犯罪之情形，例如性犯罪、毒品犯罪等。
臺灣法律教育於 1986 年廢除修習邏輯，導致辯證法學思維，充斥著臺灣刑法學界，令人擔憂。欠缺刑法構成要件認知者，以舊刑法認知，使得臺灣刑法回到數百年之前的主觀臆測、曲解法條的深淵。由於渠等不知「構成要件標準」才是刑法的核心標準，而引用「利益衡量」、「被害人感覺」作為標準，導致諸多亂象。此外，臺灣行政法，有些偏離構成要件思維之特殊發展，而臺灣司法判斷體系的「標準」，竟依賴主管機關的個案結果。致有臺灣的公務員像法官，臺灣的法官則像公務員之譏。以「模糊」、「禁忌」、「感覺」，作判斷依據，缺乏「求真」、「求科學」的標準。
對法律的認知，如是「科學」、「邏輯」、「理性」的認知的話，則才符「啟蒙運動」之要求。詳而言之，即即追求「清楚」、「正視問題與正面回應問題」、「正確性」諸項要求。啟蒙係指人類事務的要求，應該遵循理性，而不是跟隨信仰、迷信，或啟示之引導；深信人類的理性力量，足以改變社會與使法治更科學化，即能從「習慣」或「恣意權力」之窠臼予以解放。一切觀察世界，係以驗證科學，而不再是以「宗教」或「傳統」即可以恣意宰制。
啟蒙運動不是單一的時間點的運動，而應該是一連串的理性之連鎖反應，它需要的是理性、科學的持續傳承與開展。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
The Scientific Development on Constitutive Elements (Tatbestand) of Law；The Carolina Development on Criminal Law；Interest Measurement；Scientific Digitalization of Criminal Law；Enlightenment |
| 英文摘要： |
The practice of law embraces life in itself, of which the direction of evolution is crucial. In the bright-sided direction, the practice of law could be rational and achieve its objective of securing human rights. On the other hand, in the gloom-sided direction, it could jeopardize human beings and haul back to medieval “Constitutio Criminalis Carolina”, during which the law was nothing ,but a political tool to excoriate and purge different voices.
The Criminal Law of the Republic of China was enacted in 1935 back in the time when the statute in black and white was in accordance with the “actus reus” (Tatbestand in German), conforming to scientific rationale. However, the later practice of the court had derailed from this principle and treated the Criminal Law as a tool for the dictator during the martial law era. After the post martial law era, the legislators furthermore demonized and tabooed some crimes, e.g. sexual assault, drug-abusing and so forth.
The course on logics has been excluded from the legal education in Taiwan since 1986, resulting in a worrying status that dialectics prevailed over the criminal law academia. Due to the lack of acknowledgement of “actus reus”, some scholars analyze articles of the Criminal Law with subjectivism and contortion. Without recognizing that the “actus reus” is the key core of the Criminal Law, criteria such as the benefit measurement and the victim’s perception took over instead, contributing to much chaos. Besides, the development of the Administrative Law of the Republic of China lapses from the “actus reus” principle, and the court relies on the judgment of authorities concerned in certain cases. Thus public officials ironically and seemingly swap judges with their positions, solving dispute by “vagueness” “taboo” and “subjective” criteria rather than “precision-oriented” and “science-oriented” ones.
The recognition of law will tally with the essence of the Enlightenment only if it is “scientific”, “logical” and “rational”. Meticulously speaking, to pursue “clearness”, to face off questions and answer straight and to pursue “punctuality” are the essence. The Enlightenment signifies that any human affair shall be guided by rationality rather by faith, superstition or revelation. Belief in the power of human reasoning capability is sufficient for changing the society and making the law more scientific, and even liberation from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority. The observation of our universe shall be validated by science rather than dominated by religion or tradition.
The Enlightenment is not a movement in a timeframe but a series of chain reaction of rationality. What it requires are the sustainable succession and span of rationality and science.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、緒言與科學化重要性
貳、由類比式、卡落泥挪式、利益衡量式的刑法，進步到科學化的刑法
參、構成要件的科學化之新思維方法
肆、未來的展望
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|