| 關 鍵 詞： |
性犯罪；禁忌；性交；肛交；口交；恐龍法官；反科學；反人權；卡洛琳那法典；解放運動；啟蒙 |
| 中文摘要： |
性禁忌之強調與解放，涉及法治文明思維之重點，因為其是反科學、反人權與科學、人權之分野指標，亦涉及人類啟蒙與否之觀察重點。而臺灣刑法將性犯罪者，並不分其客觀行為輕重、主觀想法，只要有客觀某些特定行為，皆認定成立強制性交罪，現已經造成臺灣刑事司法的「夢魘」，即只要法官處刑，沒達社會某些人期待，就被歸類為「恐龍法官」。此種因為刑法立法的荒繆，導致臺灣出現刑事司法的不科學化、反人權的實務，可謂是刑事法之「異化」，脫離啟蒙正確路線。本文概分為四大部分：
第一、現象觀察：探討當今刑事司法所謂「恐龍法官」議題形成背景與原因，其肇因於西元 1999 年與 2005 年兩次刑法修法，即在刑法第 10 條增列第 5 項對於「性交」的定義，有別於一般人思維。而立法者並未考慮「構成要件」所包含之三大部分：1. 客觀行為與行為情況，2. 行為人的主觀想像，3. 客觀與主觀的互動關係。其只是將三大部位（性器、肛門與口腔）列為「禁忌」，將其列為「禁地」，無限上綱。此種「性禁忌強化」的現象，實使我國法學倒退到近 5 百年前的卡洛琳那法典思維。臺灣當前法律實務界凡是碰到性侵案件，受限於刑法第 10 條第 5 項之「定義」，只能進入「性交」的認定，法官將無任何判斷空間。
第二、探討刑法學理歷史，在 1935 年我國刑法甫創時，可謂當時世界上最優秀的立法，在其整體的規範體系上，仍表現了啟蒙刑法的各種重要價值：1. 法益理論，2. 規範理論，3. 理性化哲學思維，4. 構成要件理論。在西元 1960 年代，歐洲各國出現性禁忌解放運動，如德、法等國將過去各種性犯罪類型刪除，例如將同性戀除罪化、獸交除罪化、通姦除罪化等，各種「性禁忌」的「解放運動」，擺脫 1532 年舊時代歐洲的「宗教刑法」觀念，而進入理性化刑法觀念。然而在臺灣，1999 年及 2005 年兩次刑法修法的方向，則是變成為禁忌的強化。
第三、分析與診斷：為何朝向物化、器官化的規範，立法者不顧學界的反彈、並且與刑法學理背離，一意孤行的修法，導致 1935 年以來刑法中性犯罪體系構成要件的崩壞，致使法官在性犯罪案件的審理上，無從針對個別情形，加以討論與區分。完全不考慮行為人主觀意思、主客觀要件之間的關聯，即硬性地將凡是客觀符合該條項之情形，一律納入「性交」範疇。導致 1532 年刑法思維出現在臺灣實務。
第四、批判處方：由於立法者對「性交」概念理解不清，對「性禁忌」不採取科學、理性、差別態度，反而透過立法強化其禁忌，已造成嚴重刑事司法困擾。
解決問題處方，應刪除刑法第 10 條第 5 項，因為該規定，全然欠缺基本構成要件思維，其對正常刑法體系是「異化」，就如同存在正常刑法體系中的癌細胞，唯有割除此癌細胞，才有可能使刑法體系回歸正常，始為正本清源之道。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Sex crime；Taboo；Intercourse；Anal sex (Anal intercourse)；Oral sex；Dinosaur judge；anti-scientific (also, antiscientific)；anti-human rights；constitutio criminalis Carolina；Liberation activity；Enlightenment |
| 英文摘要： |
The issue of stress and liberation on sex taboo relates to emphasis of legitimate cultural thoughts, because it also plays the role of an indicative significance of human enlightenment by being as an indication in observing whether human thinking develops in a anti-scientific, anti-human rights way or not.
However, instead of measuring the objective behavior degree or subjective mens rea, Taiwan’s Criminal code deems sex offenders with specific objective element behavior as committing crime of compulsory sexual intercourse, which results in the nightmare of Taiwan criminal justice that judges who reached verdicts failing to meet specific expectations of society are classified as dinosaur judges. This actual practice of Taiwan criminal justice deviating from science and human rights causing by ridiculousness of Criminal Code legislation, so to speak, is an “alienation” of Criminal code, breaking away from proper route of enlightenment.
This article contains four sections:
First section centralizes in observing the phenomena. To investigate the background and cause of contemporary so-called dinosaur judge issue, which can trace back to the Criminal Code legislative amendments in 1999 and 2005, adding definition of “intercourse” varying from general thinking to Article 10, paragraph 5.
The legislator had not taken three sections contained in element behavior(German: Tatbestand) as below into consideration: 1. Objective action and act situation. 2. The subjective imagination of people committing behavior. 3. The interactive relationship between objectivity and subjectivity. Legislator has listed three parts of human body as “taboo”, such as the genital area, anus and oral cavity, thus deemed them as forbidden area, maximizing the legal effect limitlessly. This so-called phenomenon of sex taboo strengthening regressed Taiwan law study back to Constitution Criminalis Carolina about five hundred years ago. Nowadays, confined by definition of Article 10, paragraph 5, there is no judgment space for legal practitioner as judge in Taiwan; any case involved with offences against sex liberty can only be identified as “intercourse”.
The second section puts emphasis on Criminal Code academic history. In 1935, the embryonic stage, Criminal Code of R.O.C was regarded as the best legislation example in the world, displaying every important value of Criminal Code enlightenment through whole regulatory system: 1. The legal interest theory(Rechtsgutslehre); 2. The Norm Theory (Normtheorie). 3. Rationalizing philosophical theory and 4. Element behavior theory (Tatbestandslehre). In 1960s, liberation activities on sex taboo has been emerging from many European countries, such as decriminalizing past sex crime types like homosexual, bestiality and adultery in Germany and France, has gotten rid of the old time European perspective of Religion Criminal Code in 1532.
Third, analyze and prescribe why the regulating statutes moving way towards materializing and organ-deciding. Regardless of opposition from academia, the legislator made amendments deviating from Criminal Law theory in a headstrong way, causing the collapse of element behavior theory (Tatbestandslehre) in sex crime system of Criminal Code since 1935. What’s more, improper amendments also restrain the judge from making judgments, giving no chance to discuss and distinguish case by case. Not considering of the mens rea and the relationship between objective and subjective element, newly amendments recklessly regulate every situation which meets the specific narratives of Article 10, paragraph 5 into the field of “intercourse”, bringing the thought of 1532’s Criminal Law back to justice practitioner in Taiwan.
The forth part attempts to find the critical prescription. Due to the imprecise concept of intercourse, the legislator took no scientific, rational and different attitude towards sex taboo and strengthened it by legislation instead, having caused serious Criminal Law justice disturbance. To solve the problem, Article 10, paragraph 5 should be voided because of the lack of basic element behavior theory (Tatbestandslehre) thinking. Being a cancer cell alike in normal Criminal Law system, the alienation caused by concerning paragraph should be cut off, in order to bring the Criminal Code system back to normal, in a supposed, ideal way.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、探討當今「恐龍法官」之形成背景與原因
參、刑法學理的歷史探討
肆、分析與診斷
伍、處方
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|