中文摘要：

從 2012 年死刑量刑議題成為矚目焦點以來，「死刑判斷嚴謹化」是少數取得共識的目標。最高法院 102 年度台上字第 170 號判決揭櫫了兩階段審查模式，先看犯罪情節是否達到選擇死刑的界線－情節最嚴重之罪，然後再審查有無足以迴避死刑適用的矯治更生（教化）可能性。此種作法有效地達成死刑判斷嚴謹化的目標，但卻也意外造成實務及輿論過度放大「更生教化可能性」在死刑量刑判斷中的地位，相反地卻過度忽視第一階段有關「犯罪情節最嚴重」之具體認定標準，以及刑法第 57 條各款事由的類型化操作。此外，要如何檢證被告的教化可能性一事，未有充分論證，以致於適用上出現許多無所適從的問題。到了 2016 年，終究因鄭捷殺人一案致使實務上出現反對二階段審查的判決。本文具體檢視這些指標性判決的論理脈絡，並輔以日本法中最近實務的走向以及學說的討論趨勢，提出應修正現有死刑量刑判斷之基準，亦即，需限於責任刑上下限皆落於死刑級距中的情況下，方符合科處死刑所必要之「情節最嚴重之犯行」之要求，後再透過一般情狀事由的審酌，保有下修刑度的餘地。最後，本文主張應揚棄「教化可能性」鑑定，而應務實地導入探查行為人情狀的情狀鑑定。

英文摘要：

Although the issue of death penalty has a great social controversy, “imposing death penalty strictly” is indeed a consensus. As everyone knows, since Supreme Court in Taiwan has asserted that the death penalty cannot be imposed unless it has been proved that there is lack of “possibility of rehabilitation”, the purpose of imposing death penalty strictly is considerably achieved. However, the importance of the proof of “possibility of rehabilitation” in death penalty cases has been unexpectedly over-amplified and misunderstood in recent years. According to the article 6, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been passed by Taiwan’s Legislature Yuan in March 2009, “in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” This article analyzes four leading cases to explain why the meaning of “possibility of rehabilitation” would be over-amplified and misunderstood easily, and then clarifies what “the most serious crimes” means in death penalty cases. Finally, the author suggests that we should replace the obscure and vague appraisal of “reports of possibility of rehabilitation” to “presentencing investigation reports” in death penalty sentencing cases.

資料來源：

法源法律網

https://www.lawbank.com.tw/treatise/pl_article.aspx?AID=P000236899