| 摘要: | 強制辯護，雖未於刑事訴訟法中有明確定義，但作為保障刑事被告辯護權行使之制度，其藉由辯護人到庭踐行實質有效之辯護行為，維護重大案件或弱勢被告亦得平等地借助辯護人之法律專業知識，為訴訟上行為，俾使其與檢察官立於實質平等地位，以落實被告防禦權之行使，受法院公平審判。
強制辯護制度應用於審判程序，得自就其事由與範圍分別觀之。刑事訴訟法第31條第1項及第455條之5條所定事由，汲共通，得歸類為重罪型、境遇特殊型或其他類型。其中，以身心障礙、原住民族及經濟弱勢被告為集合之境遇特殊型，因存在保障不周或規定有所缺漏之情事，而有修法必要。
首先，針對強制辯護於現行法所規定之事由以觀，刑事訴訟法第31條第1項第3款透過無法完全陳述之要件限縮其範圍，卻也造成陳述能力欠缺之身心障礙被告非屬本款射程範圍而無法適用，緣此，為避免同為身心障礙之被告，因陳述能力差異，而僅得透過刑事訴訟法第31條第1項第6款規定，保障其辯護權，故本款得修正為「被告因身心障礙，致陳述能力欠缺者。」以擴大本款適用範疇。
刑事訴訟法第31條第1項第4款所欲維護者，乃維護文化衝突下之公平審判，是以，本款以被告是否具備原住民身分為強制辯護之適用標準，並不恰當，而應以事件性質為斷，並限縮於被告涉犯之罪與原住民族傳統文化、風俗習慣相關，故本款得修正為「被告具原住民身分，所涉案件與其傳統文化、風俗習慣相關，而有保障必要者。」以限縮本款適用範疇。
刑事訴訟法第31條第1項第5款立基於經濟弱勢被告辯護權之保障為出發，採取實質認定標準，始得有效維護不具有低收、中低收入戶資格被告之辯護權同受保障，故本款得修正為「被告因無資力而聲請指定者。」以擴大其適用範疇。又，關於無資力之認定，法院得依循法律扶助法第5條第1項，作為本款認定無資力之借鏡，並參酌相關機構對於低收、中低收入戶或法律扶助之標準，為實際探究被告經濟情況是否符合無資力之參考依據。
刑事訴訟法第31條第1項本文「審判中」應始於準備程序，終於判決宣示。準備程序處置事項，因具有高度專業及程序重要之性質，故準備程序應有強制辯護適用之必要。又為避免法院得行缺席之準備程序，致被告無從借助辯護人之法律專業為訴訟上行為，故刑事訴訟法第273條第5項及第284條應一併調整。
綜上所述，刑事訴訟法第273條第5項得修正為「第一項之人經合法傳喚或通知，無正當理由不到庭者，法院得對到庭之人行準備程序。但辯護人未到庭者，不在此限。」及刑事訴訟法第284條得修正為「第三十一條第一項所定之案件無辯護人到庭者，不得行準備及審判。但宣示判決，不在此限。」以貫徹被告於準備程序中辯護權之行使。
刑事訴訟法第31條第1項本文「審判中」終結時點之劃定，應以契約未明示時為探究。即契約內容已有約定其範圍包含上訴事務之處理時，辯護人為被告撰擬上訴理由之義務，便源於民事有償委任契約，而無辯護人權責範圍之爭議；倘契約無從推知或明示排除時，則為避免強制辯護因上訴而生適用上混亂，得以判決宣示作為其終結時點，法院應類推適用刑事訴訟法第31條第1項，指定公設辯護人或律師為被告代撰上訴理由，用以衡平契約自由與被告辯護權之保障。
Compulsory Council, though not explicitly defined in the Criminal Procedure Law, is a system to protect the defendant's Right to Defense by ensuring a defense attorney provides Effective Assistance of Counsel. This ensures that defendants, especially in serious cases or from Underprivileged Populations, have access to legal expertise, maintaining equality with the prosecutor and ensuring a fair trial.
The application of Compulsory Council can be divided into categories such as serious crimes, special circumstances, or others, as outlined in Article 31, Paragraph 1 and Article 455-5. Defendants with disabilities, indigenous status, or economic disadvantages are considered Underprivileged Populations, necessitating legal amendments due to gaps in current protections.
First, Article 31, Paragraph 1, Item 3 limits the scope to those unable to fully present themselves, excluding defendants with disabilities who cannot articulate properly. This provision should be amended to include “defendants with disabilities who lack the ability to articulate themselves,” expanding its applicability.
Article 31, Paragraph 1, Item 4 aims to ensure fairness in cultural conflict cases but uses indigenous status as the only criterion for Compulsory Council. This should be amended to focus on cases where the offense is related to the defendant’s traditional culture or customs, narrowing the scope.
Article 31, Paragraph 1, Item 5 protects the Right to Defense for economically disadvantaged defendants. It should be amended to: “Defendants who lack financial means and request a designated attorney,” broadening its scope. Courts should assess financial incapacity using standards from the Legal Aid Law and relevant agencies.
The term “during trial” in Article 31, Paragraph 1 should start at the Preliminary Proceeding and end with the judgment. Since Preliminary Proceeding involves specialized matters, Compulsory Council should apply during this stage. To avoid Preliminary Proceeding in absentia, Articles 273, Paragraph 5, and 284 should be amended to ensure the defendant’s Right to Defense.
Finally, the end point of “during trial” should be clarified. If the contract includes appeals, the defense attorney should draft the appeal grounds. If not, the end point for Compulsory Council should be the pronouncement of judgment, with the court appointing a public defender to assist with the appeal, balancing contractual freedom and the defendant’s Right to Defense. |
