| 摘要: | 本篇論文主要有三大部分。首先，第一部分介紹人身自由之部分；其次，第二部分介紹羈押法制之部分；最後，第三部分以我國實務案例進行法學實證研究。
人身自由，係指人民有「身體活動自由」之權利，不受國家非法之干預，即防止國家非法逮捕拘禁與其他加諸於人身上之強制行為。憲法第8條明定人民身體之自由應予保障，並直接以憲法保留之方式，保障人身自由避免受到國家權力恣意之干預，其無疑強調人身自由之保障係其他自由權利之保障之基礎。本文人身自由部分，以人身自由保障制度歷史沿革為開展，介紹英、美、法等國人身自由保障制度之歷史與國際化之趨勢；其次，詮釋憲法第8條，闡述人身自由之保障於憲法上之依據；再者，以德國基本法法制與歐洲人權公約第5條作為比較法之對象。德國基本法第2條係德國法上人身自由保障之明文，第104條則係人身自由之限制，而歐洲人權公約第5條亦係規範保障人身自由之明文。是故，將於此一部分說明德國基本法第2條及第104條與歐洲人權公約第5條之規定與內涵，進而與我國憲法第8條比較。
於刑事訴訟法與訴訟實務中，羈押制度乃係最受批評且值得探討之爭論，蓋刑事訴訟之成效與被告人權之保障，形成尖銳對立之衝突。對司法機關利益而言，刑事訴訟法有關羈押制度之規定，自不宜作太多限制，使刑事追訴機關或審判機關得以輕易對被告施予羈押；反之，就被告個人權益觀之，太過簡易而迅速即可決定羈押，或太過頻繁使用羈押，或羈押期間過久，均屬對人權之戕害，不僅對被告之人身自由與其他基本權利受到重大侵害，同時亦與刑事訴訟程序所追求之公平正義理念，背道而馳。本文羈押法制部分，認為刑事訴訟法作為應用憲法，其與憲法之關聯自係非常密切。最密切者，莫過於正當法律程序於刑事訴訟法上之應用，故說明正當法律程序與刑事訴訟之聯繫；其次，說明刑事訴訟與羈押制度之意義與目的，進而闡述我國現行羈押法制，並類型化目前我國得重罪羈押之罪名，加以分析是否過於浮濫，易生侵害人身自由之弊；再者，說明德國法之羈押制度，供我國比較攻錯，且進一步闡述重罪羈押制度於德國法上學說與實務之爭論，其是否符合人身自由保障之思想與羈押制度之目的，仍有重大分歧。是故，將於此一部分說明德國羈押法制與歐洲人權公約第5條第1項第（c）款之羈押部分，三者對照比較，進而為我國法之攻錯。
本文並於一章針對釋字第665號解釋進行分析，闡述背景事實、解釋意旨與解釋方法之爭論；其次，以全國所有高等（分）法院與最高法院之抗告裁定與再抗告裁定，作為實務案例之來源，對其進行系統化之規納解讀，並以釋字第665號作出前後，做為一個分水嶺，觀察最高法院與高等（分）法院見解之演進，是否有因本號解釋之作出，改變過往見解﹖若有改變，則現行見解為何﹖進而分析目前實務關於重罪羈押之態度。
最後，以本文先前所提出之見解，嘗試針對最高法院之意見做出評釋，並綜合各章議題，做出總結。
The thesis is composed of three main parts. The first part introduces the right of liberty, the second part talks about the detention system, and the last part contains empirical legal studies based on practical case analyses in Taiwan.
The right of liberty refers to persons’ right of body movement freedom, which should not be interfered with by the government. That is, the government should not unlawfully arrest, detain or enforce compulsory behaviors upon persons. Constitution Art. 8 states that the freedom of the people’s body should be guaranteed directly by constitutional restraint so that the right of liberty would not be violated by state power, which indicates that guaranteeing the right of liberty is the basis of guaranteeing any other freedom rights. The first part in this thesis starts with two sections: the history of the systems of the right of liberty in several countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, and their globalization. The following section annotates Constitution Art. 8, demonstrating that the safeguard for the right of liberty is in accordance with the Constitution, and compares it with the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany and ECHR Art. 5, which guarantees the right of liberty. While the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany Art. 2 declares the same idea, Art. 104 illustrates restrictions on the right of liberty. Thus, the details and significance of three articles mentioned above would be discussed and a comparison with Constitution Art. 8 of the R.O.C. would be made.
The most controversial and worth discussing issue among Criminal Procedure and proceeding practices is the detention system, due to the fact that the outcomes of criminal procedure have highly conflicted with safeguards for defendants’ human rights. For the judiciary’s sake, there should not be too many regulations concerning detention systems under Criminal Procedure. Under the circumstance, applying a detention practice to defendants could be easier. On the contrary, for defendants’ sake, an easy and rapid announcement of detention, a frequent detention, or an overtime detention would infringe upon human rights of defendants. Moreover, it repels the belief in fairness and justice, which criminal procedures have sought for. The background of the second part in this thesis is the connection between the Constitution and Criminal Procedure—or “application constitution”—especially applications of due process of law in Criminal Procedure, which explains the relationship between a due process of law and a criminal prosecution. Also, constructions and purposes of criminal procedures and detention systems are presented. After elaborating our current detention system and categorizing charges of criminal felony detention in Taiwan, an analysis would be carried out to exhibit if the charges have been sentenced excessively and therefore trespassing the right of liberty. Later, the detention system in Germany would be explained and compared with the one in Taiwan. There have been debates regarding criminal felony detention theoretically and practically in Germany. Mere differences in legal interpretations over the validity of realizing safeguards for the right of liberty and purposes of detention systems have occurred. As a result, the detention system in Germany and the detention part in ECHR Art. 5 (1) c. would be described and compared with ours. The comparison would then be served as a future reference for our detention system.
One chapter in the thesis would be focused on explaining and analyzing Interpretations NO. 665, including its background information, intentions, and arguments for interpretation methods. Secondly, motions to set aside court rulings from supreme courts and high courts nationwide serve as the source of practical case, which would be systematically induced and interpreted. In addition, Interpretations NO. 665 is used as a watershed in observing evolvement of supreme courts’ and high courts’ viewpoints to figure whether the viewpoints have been changed or not owing to the interpretation. If so, what are the current viewpoints? An analysis of the recent practices’ stand on felony detention would then be performed.
At last, with the arguments above and various issues in different chapters, a conclusion including a review and explanation of the supreme court’s opinion would be made. |
