政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/146528

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/146528

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51012953 線上人數 : 895

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/146528

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146528

題名:	被告子女之兒童最佳利益與量刑政策 An Analysis of the Best Interests of the Child in Sentencing Decisions Concerning Parents Facing Criminal Sanctions in Taiwan
作者:	林慈偉 Lin, Tzu-Wei
貢獻者:	何賴傑 Her, Lai-Jier 林慈偉 Lin, Tzu-Wei
關鍵詞:	父母及主要照顧者兒童最佳利益量刑量刑框架南非憲法法院S v M案判決兒童不與父母分離之權利替代監禁社會正義共生危害餘補義務 Parents and Primary Caregivers Best Interests of the Child Sentencing Sentencing Framework S v M Judgment (2007) of Constitutional Court of South Africa Rights not to be Separated from Parents of Children Alternatives to Imprisonment Social Justice Symbiotic Harms Residual Obligations
日期:	2023
上傳時間:	2023-08-02 13:53:32 (UTC+8)
摘要:	本文首先指出，法院就父母或主要照顧者被告科刑以及因此所造成之分離對於受其撫育兒童的負面、創傷影響，以及兒童最佳利益作為世界國際人權的普遍原則下，如何依此議論兒童最佳利益與量刑間的法制問題。本文釐清了人權規範框架下，就父母或主要照顧者被告之量刑決定與兒童最佳利益間之人權規範基礎、適用範圍、兒童最佳利益評判，以及程序性保障等概念內涵，並從澳大利亞、英格蘭和威爾斯、美國、南非等國家或區域之實踐借鏡，其中，特別著重譽有「最佳實踐」的南非經驗，亦即從南非憲法法院S v M案判決以兒童主體視角下的量刑思維以及其普通法院判決等分析，指出對於父母或主要照顧者被告的量刑置於兒童主體視角下之可能操作模式及常見的問題點。接著，回到台灣現況，在《兒童權利公約》內國法化以及台灣各級法院陸續於刑案量刑中考慮到兒童最佳利益等背景下，以台灣最高法院裁判就量刑考量兒童最佳利益之判決分析以及台灣政府就《兒童權利公約》歷來國家報告及國際審查意見嬗遞得知，台灣就親權者刑事量刑判斷的討論才剛開始起步，而若要再繼續往前走，其方向應係回歸台灣本土刑事法脈絡中釐清兒童最佳利益作為量刑因子之正當性、於量刑架構下的定位，以及如何落實於解釋論及立法論設計等。再者，啟發於懲罰社會學當中就父母與子女間的共生危害關係、國家就其刑罰投下所生對無辜波及之餘補義務、社會正義概念，乃至從「罪犯-國家」二元到「刑罰政策-監獄-社會」關係，本文探尋刑事量刑中考量兒童最佳利益之實體理由，並主張將被告子女的利益納入考量有其必要性，因為法院之量刑決定本身所造成的社會成本及危害，以及對於父母或主要照顧者被告之監禁甚或判處死刑等懲罰會形成現實上的父母與子女分離乃至死刑的永久分離，而這樣的一個決定正來自於科刑的國家司法機關即法院，此際不論是從國家義務或社會正義觀點，法院於量刑環節上即無從迴避其對於被告投下刑罰決定時應思量對於被告子女等受到無辜波及者的所有影響。依此視野繼續考察台灣法院實務見解就兒童最佳利益於量刑中考慮之理據，本文認為兒童最佳利益作為獨立量刑因子有其正當性及理由所在。並在罪刑相當脈絡下，透過應報、效益主義下就兒童利益納入刑罰理論的正反意見，再檢視兒童利益在量刑中的正當性。本文據此主張，在現行法解釋論下，應將兒童最佳利益置於有別於刑法第57條所稱一切情狀而成為另一獨立因子予以審酌，此處的兒童利益於量刑框架中，並不是犯罪行為人責任或其個人情狀之判斷，而是基於被告子女主體視角，避免社會不正義、避免傷及無辜，意識到刑罰對於整體社會更為廣泛的影響、節制刑罰使用以及兒童權益方法等政策考量。最後，國家機關是否有決心，通過量刑決定中承認被告子女之兒童權利及其最佳利益，以減少這類兒少的被邊緣化及負面影響，取決於我國法制正式承認及重視量刑對於被告子女影響的程度。依此，本文一方面於解釋論上，以兒童權利視角析論落實CRC相關解釋並將其架接至我國刑事法脈絡下相關量刑法律規定時應有的思考路徑，即主張法院於量刑時，除應看見其量刑決定是否將波及因家長觸犯法律而受影響之兒童之外，應常態性地充分考慮到不同刑種或刑度對於被告子女的影響，盡可能地選擇非監禁刑罰以替代監禁，並在既有的刑罰架構下，有意識地將兒童最佳利益作為一種解釋方法，詮釋既存的刑事法制，以確保兒童利益被看見，並確實按照兒童權利委員會相關解釋隨案評判兒童最佳利益；另方面，於立法論上，本文也提出兒童最佳利益量刑條款等涉及實體、程序面向之修法建議。 Firstly, this paper illustrated the negative and traumatic impact on children caused by the court of sentencing decisions concerning parents or primary caregivers. It also explores the legal issues regarding balancing the child’s best interests as per international human rights standards and the sentencing of the parents or caregivers. The paper clarifies the conceptual framework of human rights norms, including the human rights basis, applicability, assessment of the child’s best interests, and procedural safeguards about sentencing decisions for parents or primary caregivers within the framework of human rights norms. This paper also draws insights from the practices of countries or regions such as Australia, England and Wales, the United States, and South Africa. It mainly focuses on the renowned “best practice” of South Africa, which involves analyzing the sentencing perspectives from the child`s viewpoint as the subject in cases such as S v M in the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the decisions of its local courts. This analysis aims to identify potential operational models and common issues in sentencing parents or primary caregivers from the subjective perspective of the child. Coming back to Taiwan, with the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) provisions, the consideration of the best interests of the child being featured in all levels of Taiwanese courts in their criminal sentencing, verdict analyses published by the Supreme Court, and State Reports on the implementation of the CRC, and it can be seen that the discussion on the criminal sentencing of custodial parents in Taiwan has only just begun. This article will clarify the legitimacy of considering the child`s best interest as a factor in sentencing under Taiwanese domestic criminal law. This involves determining its position within the sentencing framework and how to implement it in terms of interpretative and legislative design. Furthermore, inspired by the field of penalty in sociology which examines the harmful coexisting relationship between parents and children, the residual obligations of the State resulting from its imposition of punishment, concepts of social justice, and the shift from a binary “offender – state” relationship to a triad “criminal justice policy - prison – society” relationship, this paper explores the substantive justifications for considering the best interests of the child in criminal sentencing, and argues that it is necessary to incorporate the interests of the defendant’s children into consideration; from the perspective of both state obligations and social justice, the court cannot avoid considering all the impacts on those innocently affected, such as the defendant’s children, when imposing punishment, given that the social costs and harm caused by the court’s sentencing decisions, including imprisonment or even the death penalty which can result in the practical permanent separation of parents and children, stems from the sentencing decisions of the judicial authorities, namely the courts. From this perspective, this paper continues to examine the practical views of Taiwanese courts regarding the consideration of the best interests of the child in sentencing, including possible affirmations or denials based on social justice or preventive perspectives. Based on this analysis, the author presents arguments for the permissibility of the child’s best interests as a sentencing factor and even as an independent sentencing factor. Additionally, within the context of proportionality between crime and punishment, the paper explores the arguments for and against incorporating children’s interests into the theory of punishment from retribution and utilitarian perspectives. It examines the compatibility of children’s interests in sentencing. This paper advocates considering the best interests of children outside of Article 57 of the Criminal Code. But it also proposes an interpretation path based on the current legal framework. The interests of the child in this context are not merely about assessing the responsibility or personal circumstances of the offender but are based on the subjective perspective of the defendant’s children. This approach aims to avoid social injustice and harm to the innocent. It acknowledges the broader impact of punishment on society as a whole and the policy considerations that regulate the use of punishment. Finally, by recognizing the rights of the defendant’s children and their best interests in sentencing decisions, efforts can be made to reduce the marginalization and negative impact on these children. Whether or not there is a determination to do so depends on the extent to which our legal system officially recognizes and values the impact of sentencing on the defendant`s children. In this regard, this paper focuses on interpretative aspects. It discusses the thought process required to implement relevant interpretations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and to bridge the applicable sentencing laws within the context of our criminal justice system. This paper argues that from a human rights perspective, the court shall consider the children directly affected by the sentencing decision and the potential impact on the defendant’s children when imposing a sentence. It suggests that non-custodial alternatives should be chosen whenever possible and that within the existing framework of penalties, the child’s best interests shall be consciously interpreted as a method of interpretation within the criminal justice system. This ensures that children’s interests are considered and that the best interests of the child are assessed following the relevant interpretations provided by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, from a legislative perspective, this paper proposes the addition of a sentencing provision based on the best interests of the child, such as the inclusion of Article 112-2 in the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act, which may promulgate the inclusion of consideration of the best interests of the child in sentencing.
參考文獻:	中文文獻一、專書 Albie Sachs（著），陳毓奇、陳禮工（譯）（2013），《斷臂上的花朵：從囚徒到大法官，用一生開創全球憲法典範》，麥田。 David Garland（著），劉宗為、黃煜文（譯）（2006），《懲罰與現代社會》，商周。阿部恭子（著），金鐘範（譯）（2018），《殺人犯的孩子》，光現。鈴木伸元（著），陳令嫻（譯）（2020），《加害人家屬：不能哭也不能笑的無聲地獄》，臺灣商務。王皇玉（2022），《刑法總則》，八版，新學林。王泰升（2022），《建構台灣法學：歐美日中知識的彙整》，國立臺灣大學出版中心。余振華（2022），《刑法總論》，增訂四版，三民。林山田（2008），《刑法通論（上冊）》，增訂十版，元照。林山田（2008），《刑法通論（下冊）》，增訂十版，元照。林山田（2015），《刑罰學》，修訂版八刷，臺灣商務。林書楷（2022），《刑法總則》，六版，五南。林鈺雄（2022），《刑事訴訟法（上冊）》，十一版，自版。林鈺雄（2022），《新刑法總則》，十版，自版。柯耀程（2005），《刑法總論釋義：修正法篇（下）》，元照。高玉泉、蔡沛倫（2016），《兒童權利公約逐條要義》，衛生福利部社會及家庭署。張麗卿（2022），《刑法總則理論與運用》，十版，五南。許玉秀（2011），《論正當法律程序原則》，軍法專刊社。許澤天（2023），《刑法總則》，四版，新學林。黃榮堅（2012），《基礎刑法學（上）》，四版，元照。黃榮堅（2012），《基礎刑法學（下）》，四版，元照。黃榮堅（2017），《靈魂不歸法律管︰給現代公民的第一堂法律思辨課》，商周。二、專書論文吳志強（2018），〈量刑因子之生活狀況及品性的再探〉，收於：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集編輯委員會（編），《主體、理性與人權的彼岸：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集》，頁229-257，新學林。李佳玟（2009），〈第六章：在地的刑罰．全球的秩序〉，收於：氏著，《在地的刑罰．全球的秩序》，頁227-255，元照。林沛君（2022），〈「家庭權」制度性保障初探：兒童權利實踐之再思考〉，收於：政治大學法學院勞動法與社會法中心（編），《理論、制度與行動：社會安全制度與社會法之先行者與推手－郭明政教授榮退祝賀論文集》，頁359-377，元照。林慈偉（2020），〈死刑辯護與國際人權公約：以ICCPR、CRPD、CRC為中心〉，收於：李宣毅等著，《死刑的重量：重大刑事案件的量刑辯護與挑戰》，頁127-149，台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟、台北律師公會、法律扶助基金會。林慈偉（2022），〈第七章：死刑案件中被告子女之兒童最佳利益〉，收於：氏著，《死刑的盡頭：人權公約下的死刑案件判決樣貌與刑事法變遷》，頁217-272，台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟。林慈偉（2022），〈第六章：判死，以兒童之名？〉，收於：氏著，《死刑的盡頭：人權公約下的死刑案件判決樣貌與刑事法變遷》，頁185-215，台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟。林慈偉（2022），〈第四章：精障，免死金牌？〉，收於：氏著，《死刑的盡頭：人權公約下的死刑案件判決樣貌與刑事法變遷》，頁113-147，台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟。黃宗旻（2018），〈刑法釋義學之前導論述：以裁判規範論為核心〉，收於：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集編輯委員會（編），《主體、理性與人權的彼岸：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集》，頁347-376，新學林。謝如媛（2018），〈少年健全成長之概念內涵與法制架構：從日本少年法制近年之動向談起〉，收於：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集編輯委員會（編），《主體、理性與人權的彼岸：李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集》，頁287-321，新學林。三、期刊論文文家倩（2023），〈從量刑工具探討國民法官的量刑評議〉，《司法周刊》，2156期（司法文選別冊），頁1-41。王正嘉（2016），〈論死刑之裁量與界限：以兩公約與比較法為出發〉，《臺大法學論叢》，45卷2期，頁687-754。何賴傑（2002），〈以訴訟時間過長之事實作為刑罰量刑之事由：評台灣高等法院八十七年度重上字更（七）第一七四號刑事裁判〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，57期，頁181-187。何賴傑（2015），〈違反訴訟迅速原則之法律效果〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，245期，頁134-148。吳景芳（1982），〈人格責任論在量刑基準理論中之意義〉，《刑事法雜誌》，26卷6期，頁31-75。李立如（2012），〈親屬法變革與法院功能之轉型〉，《臺大法學論叢》，41卷4期，頁1639-1684。李茂生（2013），〈量刑因子的調查與辯論〉，《法官協會雜誌》，15卷，頁100-113。李嘉興（2021），〈構成要件結果外之實質損害與量刑〉，《司法周刊》，2053期，頁2-3。林山田（1977），〈論刑罰裁量〉，《刑事法雜誌》，21卷1期，頁1-40。林沛君（2015），〈由聯合國兒童權利委員會第14號一般性意見重新檢視「子女最佳利益」〉，《華岡法粹》，58期，頁127-159。林尚諭（2019），〈英國量刑委員會與量刑準則〉，《司法周刊別冊》，1963期，頁4-21。林俊儒（2020），〈減刑規定與罪刑相當原則：從釋字第790號反思重刑化的毒品政策〉，《月旦醫事法報告》，45期，頁17-28。林慈偉（2013），〈專屬被告的「公平正義」？－評最高法院一○一年度第二次刑事庭會議決議及其他相關判決〉，《法學新論》，41期，頁111-132。林慈偉（2018），〈同性婚姻釋字後的通姦罪解釋及其因應：從司法院釋字第554號到第748號解釋〉，《臺大法學論叢》，47卷特刊，頁1513-1564。林慈偉（2021），〈判死，以兒童之名？從兒童權利公約觀點評李宏基死刑案〉，《法律扶助與社會》，6期，頁35-67。林慈偉（2022），〈正視房間裡的大象：從《公政公約》評湯景華縱火案歷審刑事裁判〉，《中華國際法與超國界法評論》，第18卷第2期，頁157-200。林慈偉（2022），〈論兒童最佳利益在對父母或主要照顧者被告量刑中的考慮：兼談憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決之啟示及影響〉，《臺大法學論叢》，51卷特刊，頁1023-1090。林臻嫺（2022），〈論國民法官法案件以量刑不當提起第二審上訴之審查〉，《國會季刊》，50卷4期，頁29-51。施慧玲（2004），〈論我國兒童人權法制之發展：兼談落實「聯合國兒童權利公約」之社會運動〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，14期，頁169-204。施慧玲（2022），〈家庭法律社會學的臺灣拼圖：分享一個行腳讀書人的攝像本〉，《政大法學評論》，2022特刊期，頁137-179。施慧玲、陳竹上、廖宗聖（2015），〈回顧過去、展望未來：兒童權利公約國內法化之社會分析與後續課題〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，240 期，頁113-129。范耕維（2019），〈以違法偵查作為量刑因子之正當化根據：一個刑罰理論的觀察〉，《臺大法學論叢》，48卷4期，頁2131-2198。范耕維（2020），〈罪刑相當原則之理論初探：以釋字第775號解釋為楔子〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，301期，頁131-148。許恒達（2017），〈國際法規範與刑事立法：兼評近期刑事法修訂動向〉，《臺大法學論叢》，46卷特刊，頁1257-1330。許華孚、曹雅筑（2016），〈監禁對於受刑人子女的影響：以少年個案訪談為例〉，《青少年犯罪防治研究期刊》，8卷1期，頁239-285 陳鴻生（2011），〈長刑期監禁政策之發展與影響〉，《中央警察大學犯罪防治學報》，13期，頁165-192。黃源盛（2018），〈從可矜可憫到酌減：民初大理院判決中的原情定罪〉，《國立高雄大學法學論叢》，14卷1期，頁79-127。黃榮堅（2004），〈確認量刑的實質課體〉，《台灣本土法學》，57期，頁1-3。溫祖德（2022），〈定罪與量刑程序分離論：從我國最高法院數則判決論之〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，325期，頁115-127。溫祖德（2023），〈從我國最高法院判決論量刑前調查報告〉，《月旦律評》，12期，頁29-36。廖晉賦（2023），〈淺談量刑目的及量刑基準〉，《月旦律評》，12期，頁8-20。廖福特（2014），〈「公民與政治權利國際公約」國內法化之影響：最高法院死刑相關判決之檢視〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43卷特刊，頁911-956。廖福特（2021），〈普世接受的人權條約，兒童階段的個案救濟：兒童權利公約個人申訴案件之分析〉，《東海大學法學研究》，62期，頁1-54。劉香蘭、余漢儀（2000），〈剪不斷理還亂：男受刑人婚姻關係影響機制初探〉，《婦女與兩性學刊》，11期，頁35-77。劉晏齊（2016），〈為什麼要保護未成年人？兒少福利、法律與歷史的分析〉，《政大法學評論》，147期，頁83-157。蕭宏宜（2012），〈量刑原則與罪罰相當〉，《臺灣法學雜誌》，214期，頁118-135。謝如媛（2007），〈夢想或現實？由紐西蘭經驗看修復式司法之可能性：以法院轉介之修復式司法方案為中心〉，《成大法學》，14期，頁271-314。謝如媛（2014），〈緩刑的刑事政策意涵：嚴罰趨勢下的寬典？〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43卷4期，頁1609-1664。謝如媛（2018），〈少年修復式司法的批判性考察：從少年的最佳利益到利益衡平？〉，《政大法學評論》，152期，頁125-186。謝煜偉（2014），〈重新檢視死刑的應報意義〉，《中研院法學期刊》，15期，頁139-206。謝煜偉（2018），〈量刑事實之調查與量刑情狀鑑定〉，《檢察新論》，23期，27-36。謝煜偉（2018），〈論「教化可能性」在死刑量刑判斷上的意義與定位：從最高法院102年度台上字第170號判決到105年度台上字第984號判決之演變〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，105期，頁133-186。謝煜偉（2020），〈從量刑目的論形構量刑框架及量刑理由之判決架構〉，《法官協會雜誌》，22卷，頁86-104。謝煜偉（2020），〈罪刑相當原則與情節輕微條款〉，《月旦法學教室》，209期，頁26-31。蘇俊雄（1999），〈量刑法理與法制之比較研究〉，《法官協會雜誌》，1卷2期，頁25-56。蘇俊雄（1999），〈量刑權之法律拘束性：評最高法院八十六年台上字第七六五五號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，54期，頁167-172。四、學位論文林一伃（2021），《成年毒品受刑人父母的家庭照顧議題初探：隔代教養、受刑子女和老年照顧的擠壓？》，國立臺北大學社會工作學系碩士論文。林俐君（2000），《育幼機構院童成長脈絡之探討：以受刑人子女為例》，國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。凃冠宇（2021），《展望未來的刑事責任概念：以修復式司法為契機》，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文。陳志祥（1993），《論罪刑相當原則》，文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文。劉香蘭（1999），《生別離：影響受刑人家庭關係機制初探》，國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。盧于聖（2021），《重構刑法第57條的量刑架構：從量刑目的與行為人圖像出發》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。羅浩瑋（2018），《追求再犯預防的量刑政策及其省思：以緩刑制度為中心》，國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文。蘇孟法（2018），《高牆內受刑人與家庭支持之關係：以嘉義監獄為例》，國立中正大學犯罪防治在職專班碩士論文。五、研討會論文林慈偉（2018年10月），〈李宏基死刑判決中的兒童權利公約論述分析〉，發表於《此人沒有教化可能性？－2018台灣死刑判決研討會》，台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟等（主辦），臺北。六、網頁資料（※本文所引網頁資料，最後瀏覽日均為2023年7月15日）人權公約施行監督聯盟（2022），〈人約盟2022 CRC 議題清單平行回覆〉，https://covenantswatch.org.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/220930_CRC-%E8%AD%B0%E9%A1%8C%E6%B8%85%E5%96%AE%E5%9B%9E%E8%A6%86_%E4%BA%BA%E7%B4%84%E7%9B%9F%E7%B8%BD%E5%8D%94%E8%AA%BF_%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87_%E5%85%AC%E9%96%8B_rev.1.pdf。人權公約施行監督聯盟（2022），〈人權公約施行監督聯盟總協調2022年兒童權利公約平行報告〉，https://covenantswatch.org.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CW_2022-CRC-PR-2nd_TC_220322.pdf。小民參政歐巴桑聯盟（2018），〈針對8/31法務部重啟死刑槍決李宏基聲明稿〉https://obs.childrenright.org/%E9%87%9D%E5%B0%8D8-31%E6%B3%95%E5%8B%99%E9%83%A8%E9%87%8D%E5%95%9F%E6%AD%BB%E5%88%91%E6%A7%8D%E6%B1%BA%E6%9D%8E%E5%AE%8F%E5%9F%BA-%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E%E7%A8%BF/。王定傳、王捷（2019），〈首例鑑定死囚子女利益法界：聞所未聞〉，https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1342065。台北律師公會（2018），〈台北律師公會就充滿政治操作與違反正當程序的死刑執行之聲明〉，https://www.tba.org.tw/%E6%9C%83%E5%93%A1%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF%E5%85%A7%E9%A0%81/?ID=3458#%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF。台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟（2018），〈2018.08.31回應法務部執行李宏基死刑記者會〉，https://www.taedp.org.tw/story/10412。司法院（2021），〈司改2.0：打造透明、可預測的「量刑改革」司法院通過《刑事案件妥適量刑法》草案新聞稿〉，https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-552762-f0c5a-1.html。林慈偉（2019），〈看見「被遺忘的受害者」：兒童權利公約下的死囚子女權益描述〉，https://www.taedp.org.tw/story/10505。法務部（2018），〈法務部令准李宏基執行死刑〉，https://www.moj.gov.tw/2204/2795/2796/58604/。崔家瑋、鄭夙涵（2018），〈【2018 死刑判決研討會】論文發表：死刑判決及量刑活動報導〉，https://www.taedp.org.tw/story/10438。張子午（2021），〈在罪與罰背後架起對話橋梁：洪當興家暴殺人案中，孩子的聲音與人性面貌〉，https://www.twreporter.org/a/domestic-violence-best-interests-of-the-child-case。楊雁絜（2023），〈他是死刑犯，也是家人：記《兒童權利公約》國際審查〉， https://www.taedp.org.tw/story/11216。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2017），〈中華民國（臺灣）兒童權利公約首次國家報告國際審查會議結論性意見〉，https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=9711F049-5DEE-43BC-80FE-4F1ED2B30D6E。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2018），〈中華民國（臺灣）兒童權利公約首次國家報告國際審查會議結論性意見（定稿）〉，https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=9711F049-5DEE-43BC-80FE-4F1ED2B30D6E。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2021），〈第2次國家報告中文版〉，https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=76545AFB-B8A2-4B0C-A065-040836731BB1。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2022），〈兒童權利公約民間監督聯盟提出兒童權利公約第2次國家報告NGO報告〉， https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=8E8762B4-E688-4DF7-B236-A2E1B87B507E。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2022），〈兒童權利公約第2次國家報告國際審查委員會提供之問題清單〉，https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=79E53A00-1F54-4091-80DB-448650FC775A。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2022），〈兒童權利公約第2次國家報告國際審查結論性意見〉，https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=2BF473B4-5CAF-48DA-BB15-CC5F42124690。衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2022），〈問題清單政府回應〉，https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=DE946C87-33E7-450E-A0EE-B952F298E1A2。外文文獻 Abramowicz, S. (2011). Rethinking Parental Incarceration. University of Colorado Law Review, 82(Issues and 4), 793-876. Abramowicz, S. (2012). Beyond Family Law. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 63(2), 293-380. Anderson, E. W. (2015). Not Ordinarily Relevant: Bringing Family Responsibilities to the Federal Sentencing Table. Boston College Law Review, 56(4), 1501-1536. Berman, D. A. (2001). Addressing Why: Developing Principled Rationales for Family-Based Departures. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 13(5), 274-280. Bernstein, N. (2007). All Alone In The World: Children of the Incarcerated. The New Press. Bottoms, A., & Von Hirsch, A. (2010). The Crime-Preventive Impact of Penal Sanctions. In P. Cane & H. M. Kritzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (pp. 96-124). Oxford University Press. Boudin, C. (2011). Children of Incarcerated Parents: The Child’s Constitutional Right to the Family Relationship. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(1), 77-118. Bülow, W. (2014). The Harms beyond Imprisonment: Do We Have Special Moral Obligations Towards the Families and Children of Prisoners? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17 (4), 775-789. Bülow, W. (2022). Who is Responsible for Remedying the Harm Caused to Children of Prisoners?. Ethics and Social Welfare, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2022.2138935 Bush, E. L. (1990). Not Ordinarily Relevant Considering the Defendants’ Children at Sentencing. Federal Probation, 54(1), 15-22. Claessen, J. (2016). Theories of Punishment, In J. Keiler & D. Roef (Eds.), Comparative Concepts of Criminal Law (pp.11-34). Intersentia. Codd, H. (2019). The Rights of Children of Imprisoned Parents, In M. Hutton & D. Moran (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Prison and the Family (pp. 365-384). Palgrave Macmillan. Comfort, M. (2008). Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. University of Chicago Press. Condry, R. (2007). Families Shamed: The Consequences of Crime for Relatives of Serious Offenders. Routledge. Condry, R. (2018). Prisoners’ Families and the Problem of Social Justice. In R. Condry & P. S. Smith (Eds.), Prison, Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? (pp. 27-40). Oxford University Press. Condry, R., & Minson, S. (2021). Conceptualizing the Effects of Imprisonment on Families: Collateral Consequences, Secondary Punishment, or Symbiotic Harms?. Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 540-558. Condry, R., & Smith, P. S. (2018). The Sociology of Punishment and the Effects of Imprisonment on Families. In R. Condry & P. S. Smith (Eds.), Prison, Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? (pp. 1-26). Oxford University Press. Condry, R., & Smith, P. S. (2018). Prison, Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? Oxford University Press. Cullen, D. (2016). Forgotten Victims: Children of Parents Sentenced to Death or Executed, Oxford Human Rights Hub. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/forgotten-victims-children-of-parents-sentenced-to-death-or-executed/ Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond Nothing Works. Crime and Justice: Review of Research, 42, 299-376. Dallaire, D. H., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). The Relation of Exposure to Parental Criminal Activity, Arrest, and Sentencing to Children’s Maladjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(4), 404-418. De Ruyter, D. J., Hissel, S. C., & Bijleveld, C. C. (2013). Children, Mothers and the Criminal Justice System. Review of European Studies, 5(4), 43-53. Donson, F., & Parkes, A. (2016). Weighing in the Balance: Reflections on the Sentencing Process from a Children’s Rights Perspective. Probation Journal, 63(3), 331-346. Easton, S. (2008). Dangerous Waters: Taking Account of Impact in Sentencing. Criminal Law Review, (2), 105-120. Eekelaar, J. (2015). The Role of the Best Interests Principle in Decisions Affecting Children and Decisions about Children. International Journal of Children`s Rights, 23(1), 3-26. Eekelaar, J., & Tobin, J. (2019). Article 3. The Best Interests of the Child. In J. Tobin (Ed.), The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary (pp. 73-107). Oxford University Press. Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A., & Macdonald, A. (2007). Human Rights and Criminal Justice. Sweet & Maxwell. Epstein, R. (2013). Sentencing Mothers: The Rights of the Child and the Duties of the Criminal Courts. Contemporary Social Science, 8(2), 130-140. Farrell, A. (2001). Distinguishing Among the Unhappys: The Influence of Cultural Gender Norms on Judicial Decisions to Grant Family Ties Departures. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 13(5), 268-273. Farrior, S. (2019). Protection of the Rights of Children of Parents Sentenced to Death or Executed: A Legal Analysis. Quaker United Nations Office. Feig, L. (2015). Breaking The Cycle: A Family-Focused Approach to Criminal Sentencing in Illinois. University of Chicago Advocates’ Forum. https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-forum/breaking-cycle-family-focused-approach-criminal-sentencing-illinois Flynn, C., Bartlett, T., Arias, P. F., Evans, P., & Burgess, A. (2015). Responding to Children When Their Parents Are Incarcerated: Exploring the Responses in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. Law Context: A Socio-Legal J., 32, 4-27. Flynn, C., Naylor, B., & Arias, P. (2016). Responding to the Needs of Children of Parents Arrested in Victoria, Australia: The Role of the Adult Criminal Justice System. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 351-369. Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2015). Mass Incarceration, Parental Imprisonment, and the Great Recession: Intergenerational Sources of Severe Deprivation in America. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 80-107. Fox, R. G., & Freiberg, A. (1999). Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria. Oxford University Press. Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children, Communities, and Prisoners. Crime and Justice: Review of Research, 26, 121-162. Halton, L., & Townhead, L. (2020). Children of Incarcerated Parents: International Standards and Guidelines, Quaker United Nations Office. https://quno.org/resource/2020/3/children-incarcerated-parents-international-standards-and-guidelines Hissel, S., Bijleveld, C., & Kruttschnitt, C. (2011). The Well-Being of Children of Incarcerated Mothers: An Exploratory Study for the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology, 8(5), 346-360. Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The Impact of Exposure to Domestic Violence on Children and Young People: A Review of the Literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 797-810. Jacobsen, A. F. (2016). Children’s Rights in the European Court of Human Rights: An Emerging Power Structure. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 24(3), 548-574. Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of Parental Incarceration. In K. Gabel & K. Johnston (Eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents (pp.59-88). Lexington Books Kaiser, K., & Spohn, C. (2018). Why Do Judges Depart? A Review of Reasons for Judicial Departures in Federal Sentencing. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 19(2), 43-62. Kearney, H. (2013). Children of Parents Sentenced to Death, In P. Hodgkinson (Ed.), Capital Punishment: New Perspectives (pp.145-167). Ashgate. Knudsen, E. M. (2016). Avoiding the Pathologizing of Children of Prisoners. Probation Journal, 63(3), 362-370. Knudsen, E. M. (2018). The Systemic Invisibility of Children of Prisoners. Prisons. In R. Condry & P. S. Smith (Eds.), Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? (pp.288-304). Oxford University Press. Larsen, A. C. (2012). Gendering Criminal Law: Sentencing A Mothering Person with Dependent Children to A Term of Imprisonment. Australian Journal of Gender and Law, 1(Article 3), Available at: http://138.25.65.17/au/journals/AUJlGendLaw/2012/3.html Lauwereys, H. (2020). Sentencing Primary Caregivers in South Africa: The Role of the Child’s Best Interests. South African Journal on Human Rights, 36(2-3), 154-177. Lerer, T. (2013). Sentencing the Family: Recognizing the Needs of Dependent Children in the Administration of the Criminal Justice System. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 9(1), 24-57. Manby, M., Jones, A.D., Foca, L., Bieganski, J., & Starke, S. (2015). Children of Prisoners: Exploring the Impact of Families’ Reappraisal of the Role and Status of the Imprisoned Parent on Children’s Coping Strategies. European Journal of Social Work, 18(2), 228-245. Markel, D., Collins, J. M., & Leib, E. J. (2007). Criminal Justice and the Challenge of Family Ties. University of Illinois Law Review, 2007(4), 1147-1228. Mason-White, H., & Kearney, H. F. (2012). Children of (alleged) offenders: revised draft framework for decision-making. Quaker United Nation Office, Geneva. https://www.quno.org/sites/default/files/resources/Revised%20Draft%20Framework%20for%20Decision-Making_black%20and%20white%20version%20for%20printing.pdf McLachlan, K. J. (2022). Trauma-Informed Sentencing in South Australian Courts. Journal of Criminology, 55(4), 495-513. Millar, H., & Dandurand, Y. (2018). The Best Interests of the Child and the Sentencing of Offenders with Parental Responsibilities. Criminal Law Forum, 29(2), 227-277. Minson, S. (2018). ‘The sins and traumas of fathers and mothers should not be visited on their children’: The Rights of Children When a Primary Carer is Sentenced to Imprisonment in the Criminal Courts. In R. Condry & P. S. Smith (Eds.), Prison, Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? (pp. 136-150). Oxford University Press. Minson, S. (2020). Maternal Sentencing and the Rights of the Child. Palgrave Macmillan. Minson, S., Nadin, R., & Earle, J. (2015). Sentencing of Mothers: Improving the Sentencing Process and Outcomes for Women with Dependent Children. Prison Reform Trust. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/sentencing-of-mothers-improving-the-sentencing-process-and-outcomes-for-women-with-dependent-children Minson, S., & Condry, R. (2015). The Visibility of Children Whose Mothers Are Being Sentenced for Criminal Offences in the Courts of England and Wales. Law in Context: Socio-Legal Journal, 32, 28-45. Moyo, A. (2013). Balancing the Best Interests of the Child and the Interests of Society When Sentencing Youth Offenders and Primary Caregivers in South Africa. South African Journal on Human Rights, 29(2), 314-350. Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 133-206. Nowak, M. (2019). The United Nations Global Study on Children Deprived of Their Liberty. Global Campus of Human Rights. https://omnibook.com/global-study-2019/liberty/1b6f1f.xcml#panel-z-dcefe5f628f3e1b2 Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press. Quaker United Nations Office (2016). Forgotten Victims: Children of Parents Sentenced to Death, Quaker United Nations Office. https://quno.org/resource/2016/5/forgotten-victims Raeder, M. S. (2006). Gender-Related Issues in Post-Booker Federal Guidelines World. McGeorge Law Review, 37(4), 691-756. Raikes, B. (2016). ‘Unsung Heroines’: Celebrating the Care Provided by Grandmothers for Children with Parents in Prison. Probation Journal, 63(3), 320-330. Raikes, B., Asiminei, R., Nathaniel, KA., Ochen, E.A., Pascaru, G., & Seruwagi, G. (2019). A Comparison of the Position of Grandmother Carers for Children with Parents in Prison in the UK, Trinidad and Tobago, Romania and Ghana. In M. Hutton & D. Moran (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Prison and the Family (pp. 229-250). Palgrave Macmillan. Roberts, J. V., & Watson, G. (2017). Reducing Female Admissions to Custody: Exploring the Options at Sentencing. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(5), 546-567. Robinson, M. B. (2010). Assessing Criminal Justice Practice Using Social Justice Theory. Social Justice Research, 23, 77-97. Ryberg, J., & Roberts, J.V. (2014). Exploring the Normative Significance of Public Opinion for State Punishment. In J. Ryberg & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Popular Punishment: On the Normative Significance of Public Opinion (pp. 1-13). Oxford University Press. Segal, J. A. (2001). Family Ties and Federal Sentencing: Critique of the Literature. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 13(5), 258-267. Sentencing Council. (2011). Assault Guidelines. London: Sentencing Council. Sentencing Council. (2019). General Guideline: Overarching Principles. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates- court/item/general-guideline-overarching-principles/ Skelton, A. (2008). Severing the Umbilical Cord: A Subtle Jurisprudential Shift Regarding Children and Their Primary Caregivers. Constitutional Court Review, 1(1), 351-368. Sloth-Nielsen, J., & Kruuse, H. (2013). A Maturing Manifesto: The Constitutionalisation of Children’s Rights in South African Jurisprudence 2007-2012. The International Journal of Children`s Rights, 21(4), 646-678. Smith, P. S. (2014). When the Innocent are Punished: The Children of Imprisoned Parents. Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, P. S. (2018). Prisoners’ Families, Public Opinion, and the State. In R. Condry & P. S. Smith (Eds.), Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? (pp. 118-135). Oxford University Press. Strydom, H., & Kivedo, M. E. (2009). Psychosocial Needs of the Children of Incarcerated Parents. Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology, 22(2), 99-117. Sutherland, E. (2016). Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Challenges of Vagueness and Priorities. In E. Sutherland & L. Barnes Macfarlane (Eds.), Implementing Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Best Interests, Welfare and Well-being (pp. 21-50). Cambridge University Press. Terblanche, S. S. (2016). A Guide to Sentencing in South Africa (3rd ed.). LexisNexis . The Judicial Commission of NSW. (2023). Sentencing Bench Book. https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/sentencing_commonwealth_offenders.html#d5e38604 The South African Judiciary. (2023). The South African Judicial System. https://www.judiciary.org.za/index.php/the-south-african-judicial-system Tobin, J. (2009). Judging the Judges: Are They Adopting the Rights Approach in Matters Involving Children? Melbourne University Law Review, 33(2), 579-625. Uganda Legal Information Institute. (2013). Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions. https://old.ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2013/article-133-1-b United States Sentencing Commission. (2021).Guidelines Manual, §3E1.1. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf Von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles. Oxford University Press Walsh, T., & Douglas, H. (2016). Sentencing Parents: The Consideration of Dependent Children. Adelaide Law Review, 37(1), 135-161. Yahalom, T. (2015). Family Matters: The Role of “Family Ties and Responsibilities” in Sentencing. Stanford Law Journal of Criminal Law and Policy, 2(63), 63-84. Young, I. (2012). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
描述:	博士國立政治大學法律學系 105651501
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105651501
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[法律學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
150101.pdf	3167Kb	Adobe PDF2	103	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回饋