憲法保障人民的基本權利，國家不得任意侵害人民之權益，必要時必須發揮憲法的功能加以保護。國家為了發現真實、落實刑事正義，透過強制手段侵害人民基本權利，刑事程序之強制手段隱藏著不可避免的錯誤，然國家基於合法之刑事程序執行，使人民受到不當人身自由之拘束，國家之合法行為導致人民受有損失國家應給予補償。其中，基本權侵害又以非財產權侵害為主，本文以「名譽侵害」為中心探討。名譽侵害具有不可回復性，因此，如何填補使受害者獲得完善的補償，是現階段更重要之議題。

      民國100年立法者對冤獄賠償做了修法，將冤獄賠償法更名為刑事補償法，並對相關條文做出修正？在司法院釋字第670號解釋有學者主張刑事補償之內涵採危險責任說，羈押係為了迅速保全證據，促進偵查程序順利之進行，本身存在著錯誤的風險，只能盡量控制，無法完全排除錯押之可能，若經證實當初羈押是錯誤的，因國家合法的行為造成人民的損失，仍應給予補償。現行刑事補償項目之補償乃基於人民因刑事公益受有損害超過可容忍之範圍應給予補償，採特別犧牲說。此次修法對於人民權利之保障是否足夠呢？刑事補償之範圍仍有不足之處，如名譽。名譽代表一個人在社會上的評價及地位，長期涉訟之過程中名譽的毀損並非侷限於羈押日數，侵害延續性甚為嚴重，無法用金錢買到，亦無計價標準，具有不可回復性，然以金錢損失是最為實際能填補受害者名譽侵害及精神痛苦之方法。本文在立法建議上，希望擴大補償範圍，補強刑事補償制度之缺漏，來填補受害人名譽等人格法益未獲完足之損失，建構出更為健全之刑事補償制度。

      Constitution protects the fundamental right of the people. The government shall not infringe any rights of the people, and shall elaborate the function of fundamental right to protect them. For pursuing criminal justice, infringing fundamental right by a strong hand is executable. Since wrongful detention and execution are serious faults, the compensation must be given. In the infringement of basic right, the infringement of non-property right is the main point. In this paper, reputation infringement would be the focus. Since reputation infringement is irreversible; how to compensate the sufferers remains an important issue in criminal compensation law.

      In 2011, the “Law of Criminal Compensation” has been amended into the “Law of Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions” by the lawmakers. Relevant articles have been amended at the same time. According to the justice interpretation number 670, some scholars have claimed the “Dangerous Responsibility Theory”, stating that compensation shall be given to people who have been wrongfully detained by the government. The current compensation for wrongful detentions and executions has adopted the “Specially Sacrificed Theory.” Under such theory, infringing the right of people would be compensated only if the scarification has exceeded a tolerable limit. Has this amendment properly protected the right of people? In the researcher’s opinion, there are a lot more to do. For instance, the damage of reputation has not yet been covered in the compensation. Though damaged reputation is irreversible, offering adequate financial compensation remains the best method to fill up the damage of reputation and mental distress. Hereby, the researcher suggests that the range of criminal compensation shall be expanded in order to fully covered sufferer’s damages.

資料來源:https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=PJjnk4/record?r1=5&h1=2