按Enter到主內容區
:::

刑法殺人罪適用死刑標準之研究

  • 發布日期:
  • 最後更新日期:109-05-13
  • 資料點閱次數:154
我國刑罰的目的,為行為人犯罪後於法定刑內應受到合理的懲罰,藉此希望達到矯正功能及社會秩序的維持,因此法官對行為人量刑輕重的結果,是否與行為人之行為責任成正比,仍是社會大眾所關注的。 近年在我國遵循世界的人權保障下,原本是罊竹難書、悖逆倫理、惡性重大的犯罪行為,法官審理時受限兩公約規定只有最嚴重犯行才能判死的適用,而未判死的結果,多次造成社會大眾對司法極度不滿。 本文乃針對100年至104年間重大殺人爭議案件探討,試圖找出法官審理極為嚴重的殺人案例中,法官判決死刑或無期徒刑的量刑因子差異,整理出殺人案件適用死刑的標準,藉此期能使社會對於殺人案件法院判決之理由,更符合社會大眾所期待之公平正義。

The purpose of punishment of a perpetrator after the crime refers to being punished within the range of reasonable statutory sentences, and hope to thereby achieve correction function and the maintenance of social order. Thus whether the decision of judge’s sentence imposed on the perpetrator is proportional to the perpetrator’s acts is still being publicly concerned about. In recent years, under the protection of human rights of the world, even a man of much sin, diabolic revolt against ethics and malignant major offenses, however, being restricted by the provisions of the two International Covenants that only the most serious perpetrator can be sentenced to death, the judges have failed to give a death penalty as a result, it hence repeatedly caused extreme dissatisfaction with the judicial community. This article investigates the major disputed murders occurred between 2011 and 2015, trying to find the sentencing factor-differences of life imprisonment or the death penalty ruled by the judges in the extremely serious murder cases, sorting out the applicable standards of death penalty wherein. Hopefully, thereafter the reasons for judgment on homicides given by the court will be the justice more in line with what the public expect.

資料來源:http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/28342505948580925490

回頁首