法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 反思刑事被告之審判期日在場義務(Rethinking the Defendant's Duty to Appear before the Court on the Trial Date)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2013.03
刊登出處: 台灣/臺北大學法學論叢第 85 期 /225-271 頁
頁  數: 47 點閱次數: 553
下載點數: 188 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 薛智仁
關 鍵 詞: 審判期日在場義務聽審請求權發現真實被告缺席判決訴訟照料義務程序主體地位
中文摘要: 依刑事訴訟法規定,刑事被告負有於審判期日全程在場之義務,若不履行此項義務,則可能受到拘提或羈押。由此可知,在場義務對刑事被告之行動自由及其他受法律保護之利益干預甚深,有必要釐清其實質理由為何,以檢視其是否符合比例原則。在批判性地分析德國法學界的研究成果之後,本文主張:保障被告之聽審請求權及實現犯罪預防效果等觀點,無法構成全程在場義務之合理根據,被告原則上享有是否出席審判期日之決定自由,此一自由唯有基於促進真實發現之目的始得加以限制。以此為出發點,未來在立法上應廢除被告於審判期日之全程在場義務,改由法院依個案裁量在場義務之射程,擴大被告缺席判決的可能性,以兼顧被告權利保障與刑事司法之有效運作。
英文關鍵詞: trial dateduty to appear before the courtright to be hearddiscovery of truthex parte verdictduty of care in criminal proceedingssubject of the proceeding
英文摘要: In accordance with the regulations in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal defendant has the duty to appear before the court to attend the whole process on the trial date. Failing to abide by this rule will result in his being detained or taken into custody. It is clear that the duty to appear before the court might cause the invasion of the defendant’s freedom of movement and other interests protected by the law. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the fundamental reasons for such regulation to decide whether such regulation is in violation of the principle of proportionality. After a critical analysis of the research result of the German legal society, this article contends that arguments such as protecting the defendant’s right to be heard, crime prevention, etc. do not justify the defendant’s duty to appear before the court to participate the whole process. Basically, the defendant shall have the freedom to decide whether to appear before the court and only when the discovery of truth is needed can this regulation be applied. Consequently, such regulation should be abolished and replaced by a court ruling to grant an ex parte verdict on a case by case basis according to the degree of participation of the defendant of the trial, and the scope of application for detaining and taking into custody for fearing the defendant’s fleeing should be narrowed down.
目  次: 壹、問題提出
貳、刑事被告在場義務之實質理由
一、保障被告之聽審請求權
(一)被告欠缺處分聽審請求權的自由?
(二)被告欠缺捨棄聽審請求權的自主能力?
(三)擴大法院闡明或告知義務的可能性
二、促進真實發現
(一)在場被告之證據價值依個案而定
(二)在場義務仍符合不自證己罪原則
三、實現犯罪預防效果
四、小結
參、刑事被告在場義務之規範模式初探
一、第一審審判期日:擴大被告缺席判決之適用範圍
二、第二審審判期日:無故缺席作為駁回被告上訴之事由
肆、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列