中文摘要：

我國近年來關於殺人案件被告是否判處死刑之標準，多以被告有教化可能為由而判處非死刑之刑度，惟我國近八成民眾目前仍反對廢除死刑之情形下，要如何於保障被告之生命權及社會維持死刑之輿論間獲得平衡，非單純以一被告有無教化可能一詞而為斷定。
本研究聚焦於法官於殺人案件中之具體量刑標準，並以「教化可能」一詞搜尋我國各級法院殺人案件之刑事判決書，就刑法第57條法定量刑因素及非法定量刑因素先為歸納統計，進一步挑選代表案件解析判決書中之犯罪事實、歷審法院判決刑度及內容以及具體量刑標準。
本研究發現，目前我國各級法院於殺人案件中對於被告有無教化可能之判斷未有一致且具體之標準，且實務上常以囑託專業機關鑑定所得之結果，或傳喚鑑定人到庭具結證述，用以斷定被告有無教化可能，進而於判決書中顯現出被告刑度之不同，另就刑法第57條各款法定量刑因素及非法定量刑因素並非全盤考量。

本研究分析研究發現並輔以文獻探討後，提出刑事殺人案件量刑系統之完備、囑託專業機關之鑑定結果僅限於量刑參考、設立量刑調查官職務、踐行嚴謹完整之審理程序、引進修復式司法制度及「教化可能性」不可成為是否判處被告死刑之量刑因素等建議以供參酌。

英文摘要：

In recent years, the standard of whether the defendant was sentenced to death or not in the homicide case, was often imposed on the grounds that the defendant had the possibility of correction. However, nearly 80% the people in Taiwan are still opposed to the abolition of the death penalty, how to get the balance between protecting the right of the defendant’s life and maintaining the death penalty in the public opinion, it’s not simply to judge that the defendant had the possibility of correction.
The study focuses on the specific sentencing standard of the judge in the homicide case, and uses the keyword on “the possibility of correction” to search homicide cases of all levels of the court in Taiwan. At first, it was induced and gathered statistics on the legal sentencing factor in Article 57 of the Criminal Law and the illegal sentencing factor. Furthermore, it was chosen the representative cases to analyze these sentences of the criminal facts, the judgments and contents of all levels of court, and the specific sentencing standard.
The study found: At present, there is no consistent and specific standard for the sentencing in the homicide case of all levels of the court in Taiwan. Moreover, the results of the identification of professional institutions or summon to the appraisers stand witness with a deposition that determine whether the defendant was had the possibility of correction or not. Further, the difference of the sentence of the defendant is displayed. Finally, the judges didn’t make overall consideration on the legal sentencing factor in Article 57 of the Criminal Law and the illegal sentencing factor.
After analyzing the findings and related literature, the study suggests: to complete the sentencing system of homicide cases in criminal, the results of the identification of professional institutions are limited to the sentencing reference, to establish a sentencing investigation office, to implement the religious and complete the legal procedure, to introduce a restorative justice system and “the possibility of correction” can’t be the sentencing factor of whether to decide the defendant’s death penalty.

資料來源：

台灣博碩士論文知識加值系統