Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/156038
|
| Title: | 台灣憲法法庭制度正當性與背書效果：以死刑案判決為例
The Institutional Legitimacy and Endorsement Effect of the Taiwan Constitutional Court: A Study of the Death Penalty Case |
| Authors: | 賴永承
Lai, Yong-Cheng |
| Contributors: | 韓義興
Han, Yi-Hsing
賴永承
Lai, Yong-Cheng |
| Keywords: | 死刑
憲法法庭
說服理論
制度正當性
驗證性因素分析
Death Penalty
Institutional Legitimacy
Persuasion Theory
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Taiwan Constitutional Court |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-03-03 14:48:21 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 關於法院的制度正當性如何測量，以及法院判決如何改變人們對爭議政策看法的問題，在臺灣罕見實證研究。本文以2024年憲法法庭作成的死刑案判決為例，援引說服傳播理論，探討民眾既存議題態度、認知判決與個人立場差距，以及對法院的制度正當性評價，如何影響民眾對廢除死刑與適用死刑範圍的態度轉變。此外，本研究亦建構憲法法庭制度正當性測量題組，並與其他法院公共支持指標加以區辨。
藉由死刑判決前後的兩波網路調查問卷，本研究成功追蹤402位受訪者，其中有312位知悉判決結果。經驗證性因素分析顯示，憲法法庭的制度正當性與公信力、政治涉入、溫暖度、滿意度、一般法院信任等概念均有差異。在政策背書方面，整體來說判決後民眾廢除死刑支持度下降，然而原先贊成廢死與反對廢死者，態度均往中間移動，推測是因大法官採取死刑合憲但限縮適用的折衷方式所致。此外，民眾越認為法庭具有制度正當性，判決後則越傾向支持廢死。在法理背書效果上，相對於主張限縮死刑者，原先傾向擴張死刑或死刑違憲的民眾，判決後均往限縮死刑方向轉變，但對主張死刑違憲或維持原先適用範圍者，判決後並沒有顯著變化。此外，制度正當性越高，判決後越傾向限縮死刑適用；特別的是，民眾認知判決立場與原先立場差距越大，越傾向增加死刑適用。
雖然受限樣本特性，本文研究發現無法擴及全國民意。但對於憲法法庭制度正當性與背書效果的初探成果，仍可與司法公共支持理論展開對話，使法政學術界更加留意憲法法庭的背書效果，以及大法官在爭議案件中可能扮演的角色。對實務界而言，本研究不僅可作為司法院或未來民意機關調查題組設計的重要基礎，對大法官而言，也可更審慎地思考判決如何說服潛在受眾。
Despite extensive theoretical debates, empirical research on how to measure the institutional legitimacy of courts and how judicial decisions alter public attitudes toward contentious policies remains scarce in Taiwan. Drawing on the 2024 death penalty ruling by the Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC), this study employs persuasion theory to examine the influence of individuals’ pre-existing issue attitudes, the gap between their perception of the ruling and their personal stance, and their evaluations of the court's legitimacy on changes in support for both abolishing the death penalty and the scope of its application. In addition, the study develops a measurement instrument for assessing the TCC’s legitimacy, distinguishing it from other indicators of judicial public support.
Using two waves of online surveys conducted before and after the ruling, the study successfully tracked 402 respondents, 312 of whom were aware of the ruling outcome. Confirmatory factor analysis reveals that the construct of institutional legitimacy differs from related concepts such as trustworthiness, political involvement, affective warmth, satisfaction, and general trust in the courts. In terms of policy endorsement, overall support for abolishing the death penalty declined following the decision; however, both proponents and opponents shifted toward more moderate positions, suggesting that the court’s decision—a compromise endorsing the constitutionality of the death penalty while restricting its application—has moderated public attitudes.
Moreover, respondents who perceived higher institutional legitimacy in the court were more inclined to support abolition post-ruling. Regarding legal endorsement, individuals who initially favored either an expansion of the death penalty or its unconstitutionality tended to shift toward favoring its restricted application, whereas those originally advocating for its unconstitutionality or for maintaining the status quo showed no significant change. Furthermore, higher perceived institutional legitimacy was associated with a greater tendency to restrict the death penalty's application, while a larger discrepancy between the perceived and initial positions corresponded to increased support for its expansion.
Although the sample characteristics limit the generalizability of these findings to national public opinion, the preliminary results contribute to the ongoing discourse on the legitimacy and endorsement effects of the TCC. The study underscores the importance of considering the persuasive impact of judicial decisions and the potential roles of Justices in shaping contentious policy debates. Practically, these findings can serve as a foundational framework for future survey design by the Judicial Yuan or other public opinion agencies and may prompt Justices to more carefully consider how their rulings influence public perceptions. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
王正偉（1998）。〈我國人民法律認知之探討──兼論接近正義之問題〉。《國立政治大學學報》，77，413-457。
台灣公民人權聯盟（2023年3月22日）。〈2023年司法信心年度民意調查〉【公告】。https://www.tclu.tw/2023%e5%b9%b4%e5%8f%b8%e6%b3%95%e4%bf%a1%e5%bf%83%e5%b9%b4%e5%ba%a6%e6%b0%91%e6%84%8f%e8%aa%bf%e6%9f%a5.html%E3%80%82
台灣民意基金會（2024年7月16日）。〈2024年7月全國性民意調查摘要報告〉【公告】。https://www.tpof.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/TPOF-7%E6%9C%88%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A.pdf
台灣媒體觀察教育基金會（2020年4月28日）。〈「2019台灣新聞媒體可信度研究」研究報告〉【公告】。https://www.mediawatch.org.tw/news/9911
司法院（2018年11月29日）。〈本院對於全國性公民投票案第10案及第12案創制之立法原則 不能牴觸釋字第 748 號解釋之說明〉【新聞稿】。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=5297&id=168142
司法院（2020年7月22日）。〈國民參與的司法，凝聚全民的司法—國民法官法三讀通過記者會致詞〉【新聞稿】。https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-191-252369-847a9-1.html
司法院（2022年5月20日）。〈司法院回應民調機構發布司法改革相關民調結果〉【新聞稿】。https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-644558-48c7f-1.html
民間監督司法院大法官人選聯盟（2024年10月9日）。〈記者會｜「倉促不合宜、杯葛難雙贏」 民間監督司法院大法官人選聯盟新聞稿〉【新聞稿】。https://www.jrf.org.tw/articles/2807
石世豪，2017，〈「改革」大纛下的勇敢「說法」？——「許宗力法院」第一年即展現司法積極主義〉，《憲政時代》，43(1)，51-87。https://doi.org/10.3966/101665132017074301003
朱瑞玲（2014）。〈1990年社會意向調查：第二次不定期調查(C00012)【原始數據】〉。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00012-1
吳庚（2004）。《憲法的解釋與適用（三版）》。三民書局。
吳重禮（2008）。〈司法與公共支持：台灣民眾對於司法體系的比較評價〉，《台灣政治學刊》，12(2)，15-66。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.200812.12(2).15-66
呂易珊（2024年3月12日）。〈虐童致殘者，加重刑責；虐童致死者，唯一死刑。〉，《公共政策網路參與平臺》。取自https://join.gov.tw/idea/detail/1da48653-59e5-4d5c-af84-b3a9cbc2d334
李立如（2022）。〈2018 臺灣法律與社會變遷調查第5期(1)：憲法與人權調查(公共版)(C00368)【原始數據】〉。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00368-1
李立如、黃國昌（2016）。〈2010臺灣法律與社會變遷調查第2期：民眾法意識調查(公共版)(C00220)【原始數據】〉。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00220-1
李念祖（2019）。〈法官為司法審查的點石成金術──從釋字第177、371、407 及617號解釋論審判中合憲性解釋的功能〉，《月旦裁判時報》，82，79-93。https://doi.org/10.3966/207798362019040082008
李茂生（2011）。〈死刑存廢論再考－分析反對廢除死刑者的深層心理〉，《臺灣法學雜誌》，169，71-89。
周愫嫻（2017）。〈民意支持死刑的態度可改變嗎？〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，46(2)，553-588。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2017.46.02.04
林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞（2008）。《憲法：權力分立（二版）》。新學林。
林秀雲譯（2016）。《社會科學研究方法》。雙葉書廊。（原書 Babbie, E. [2015]. The Practice of Social Research (14E). Cengage Learning.）
林清汶（2024年1月27日）。〈延宕死刑 傷司法公信〉，《聯合新聞網》。https://udn.com/news/story/7339/7736777
林瓊珠、蔡佳泓（2010）。〈政黨信任、機構信任與民主滿意度〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，35，147-194。https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532010120035004
邱皓政（2018）。《量化研究方法法（三）：測驗原理與量表發展技術》。雙葉書廊。
洪永泰（2020）。〈第五章 抽樣〉，陳陸輝主編《民意調查》，頁119-164。臺北市：五南。
翁岳生（2009）。〈憲法之維護者──省思與期許〉，廖福特主編《憲法解釋之理論與實務（第六輯）》，頁1-169，中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。
國立中正大學犯罪研究中心（2023年2月13日）。〈111年全年度臺灣民眾對司法與犯罪防制滿意度之調查研究〉【公告】。https://deptcrc.ccu.edu.tw/index.php?option=module&lang=cht&task=pageinfo&id=1115&index=1
張文貞（2015）。〈死刑釋憲：引領公共論辯及共識形成的模擬憲法法庭〉。《全國律師》，19(6)，13-19。
張嘉尹（2014）。〈司法院大法官釋憲制度的歷史發展與憲法基礎〉，廖福特主編《憲法解釋之理論與實務（第八輯）》，頁115-174，中央研究院法律學研究所。
盛杏湲（2020）。〈第六章 問卷設計〉，陳陸輝主編《民意調查》，頁165-226。五南。
許宗力（2018）。〈大法官的司法積極主義如何形塑臺灣的自由民主憲政秩序〉，《司法周刊》，1923，16-33。
許家馨（2024年4月9日）。〈許家馨研究員1130409專家諮詢意見書_OCR〉。取自https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=2203&id=351721
郭貞（2016）。〈說服傳播〉，郭貞主編《傳播理論》，頁285-328。揚智文化。
陳怡如、劉從葦、呂建德（2017）。〈臺灣民眾為什麼不信任司法？一個模糊集合的分析〉，《民主與治理》，4(1)，29-67。https://doi.org/10.3966/2311505X2017020401002
陳彥宇（2013）。《影響台灣民眾司法信任之因素探討》。臺北大學社會學系碩士在職專班論文。
陳昭如（2024）。〈2022臺灣法律與社會變遷調查第6期(1)：【原始數據】〉。取自臺灣法律與社會變遷調查資料庫。https://tadels.law.ntu.edu.tw/database-society/survey12
陳陸輝（2003）。〈政治信任、施政表現與民眾對台灣民主的展望〉，《台灣政治學刊》，7(2)，149-188。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.200312.7(2).149-188
陳陸輝（2024）。〈2020年至2024年「台灣選舉與民主化調查」四年期研究規劃(1/4)：大規模基點調查面訪案（D00219）【原始數據】〉，取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00219-1
陳義彥、陳陸輝（2004）。〈臺灣大學生政治定向的持續與變遷〉，《東吳政治學報》，18，1-39。
湯德宗（2000）。〈立法裁量之司法審查的憲法依據──違憲審查正當性理論初探〉，《憲政時代》，26(2)，3-44。
黃芳銘（2002）。《結構方程模式理論與應用》。五南。
黃昭元（2003）。〈司法違憲審查的正當性爭議──理論基礎與方法論的初步檢討〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，32(6)，105-153。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2003.32.06.04
黃紀（2020）。〈第二章 調查研究設計〉，陳陸輝主編《民意調查》，頁31-59。五南。
黃國昌、陳恭平、林常青（2017）。〈台灣人民對法院的信任支持及觀感：以對法官判決之公正性為中心〉，《台灣政治學刊》，21(1)，51-112。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201706.21(1).51-112
黃慕也、張世賢（2008）。〈政治媒介藉由政治效能、政治信任對投票行爲影響分析──以2005年選舉爲例〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(1)，45-85。https://doi.org/10.6448/TDQ.200803.0045
蔡佳泓（2009）。〈台灣民眾的民主評價：以2004年為例的驗證性因素分析〉，《社會科學論叢》，3(1)，151-184。https://doi.org/10.30401/RSS.200904_3(1).0005
蔡宗珍（1997）。〈合法性與正當性的辯證──追尋卡爾．史密特一九三二年的思想軌跡〉，《當代》，124，18-31。
簡資修（1994）。〈台灣民眾之基本人權觀：社會意向資料之初釋〉，伊慶春編《台灣人民的社會意向：社會科學的分析》，頁311-331。中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
鄭善印（2024年4月8日）。〈鄭善印教授1130408專家諮詢意見書_OCR〉。取自https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=2203&id=351721
蕭高彥（2010）。〈死刑存廢：政治思想與哲學的省思〉。《思想》，17，122-141。https://doi.org/10.29848/SX.201010.0006
賴擁連（2024年4月9日）。〈賴擁連教授1130409專家諮詢意見書_OCR〉。取自https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=2203&id=351721
謝煜偉（2024年4月16日）。〈謝煜偉教授1130416專家諮詢意見書_OCR〉。取自https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=2203&id=351721
瞿海源（2006）。〈遏止犯罪、生命價值與死刑：臺灣民眾對廢除死刑的態度〉。《臺灣社會學刊》，37，133-167。https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.200612_(37).0004
瞿海源、鄭宏文（2000）。〈司法信賴的調查分析〉，澄社、民間司法改革基金會主編《司法的重塑：民間司法改革研討會論文集（一）》，頁93-108。桂冠圖書。
蘇子喬（2022）。〈違憲審查、公民投票與國會立法之間的角力與折衝：我國同性婚姻合法化的歷程〉，《行政暨政策學報》，74，1-34。https://doi.org/10.29865/PAP.202206_(74).0001
蘇永欽（1994）。《合憲性控制的理論與實際》。月旦。
蘇永欽（1998）。《司法改革的再改革》。元照。
二、外文部分
Adamany, D. (1973). Legitimacy, realigning elections, and the supreme court. Wisconsin Law Review, 1973(3), 790-846.
Baas, L. R., & Thomas, D. (1984). The Supreme Court and policy legitimation: Experimental tests. American Politics Quarterly, 12(3), 335-360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8401200305
Badas, A. (2016). The public’s motivated response to Supreme Court decision-making. Justice System Journal, 37(4), 318-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2016.1184110
Badas, A. (2019). The applied legitimacy index: A new approach to measuring judicial legitimacy. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1848-1861. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12660
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Baird, V. A., & Gangl, A. (2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media's framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27(4), 597-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00518.x
Bartels, B. L., & Johnston, C. D. (2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 184-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x
Bartels, B. L., & Johnston, C. D. (2020). Curbing the court: Why the public constrains judicial independence. Cambridge University Press.
Bartels, B. L., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Explaining processes of institutional opinion leadership. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090166
Baum, L. (2009). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton University Press.
Bickel, A. M. (1962). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics. Bobbs-Merrill.
Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social Sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). CA: Sage.
Caldeira, G. A. (1977). Children's images of the Supreme Court: A preliminary mapping. Law & Society Review, 11(5), 851-871. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053332
Caldeira, G. A. (1986). Neither the purse nor the sword: Dynamics of public confidence in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1209-1226. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960864
Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635-664. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585
Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1995). The legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of institutional support. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 356-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082430
Cann, D. M., & Yates, J. (2008). Homegrown institutional legitimacy: Assessing citizens' diffuse support for State courts. American Politics Research, 36(2), 297-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X07308737
Carrington, N. T., & French, C. (2021). One bad apple spoils the bunch: Kavanaugh and change in institutional support for the Supreme Court. Social Science Quarterly, 102(4), 1484-1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12983
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2015). Issue-specific opinion change: The Supreme Court and health care reform. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(4), 881-905. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv040
Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2019). Reassessing the Supreme Court: How decisions and negativity bias affect legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 72(3), 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918794906
Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 973-988. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959141
Clawson, R. A., Kegler, E. R., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2001). The legitimacy-conferring authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An experimental design. American Politics Research, 29(6), 566-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029006002
Clawson, R. A., Kegler, E. R., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2003). Supreme Court legitimacy and group-centric forces: Black support for capital punishment and affirmative action. Political Behavior, 25, 289-311. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POBE.0000004060.38932.54
Clawson, R. A., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2003). Support for a Supreme Court affirmative action decision: A story in black and white. American Politics Research, 31(3), 251-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03251197
Dahl, R. A. (1957). Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(2), 279-295.
Dalton, R. J. (1999). Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (pp. 57-77). Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press.
Davis, T., & Benesh, S. C. (2023). Procedural justice and the shadow docket. Emory Law Journal, 73(2), 443-469.
Easton, D. (1957). An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383-400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920
Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. John Wiley & Sons.
Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435-457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400008309
Engel, S. M. (2013). Frame spillover: Media framing and public opinion of a multifaceted LGBT rights agenda. Law & Social Inquiry, 38(2), 403-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01319.x
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18(3), 217-241.
Fontana, D., & Krewson, C. N. (2023). The costs of policy legitimation: A test of the political capital hypothesis. Journal of Law and Courts, 11(2), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.13
Franklin, C. H., & Kosaki, L. C. (1989). Republican schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and abortion. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 751-771. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962059
Franklin, C. H., & Kosaki, L. C. (1995). Media, knowledge, and public evaluations of the Supreme Court. In L. Epstein (Ed.), Contemplating courts (pp. 352-375). CQ Press.
Gibson, J. L. (2007). The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a polarized polity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 507-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00098.x
Gibson, J. L. (2011). A note of caution about the meaning of ‘the Supreme Court can usually be trusted...’. Law & Courts: Newsletter of the Law & Courts Section of the American Political Science Association, 21(3), 10-16.
Gibson, J. L. (2015). Legitimacy is for losers: The interconnections of institutional legitimacy, performance evaluations, and the symbols of judicial authority. In B. H. Bornstein & A. J. Tomkins (Eds.), Motivating cooperation and compliance with authority: The role of institutional trust (pp. 81-116). Springer.
Gibson, J. L. (2024). Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory. American Journal of Political Science. 68, 1041-1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12834
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2003). Defenders of democracy? Legitimacy, popular acceptance, and the South African Constitutional Court. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00001
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2009). Citizens, courts, and confirmations: Positivity theory and the judgments of the American people. Princeton University Press.
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2011). Has legal realism damaged the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court? Law & Society Review, 45(1), 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00432.x
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2012). Campaign support, conflicts of interest, and judicial impartiality: Can recusals rescue the legitimacy of courts? Journal of Politics, 74(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611001137
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Baird, V. A. (1998). On the legitimacy of national high courts. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585668
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2003a). Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186144
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2003b). The Supreme Court and the US presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise? British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 535-556. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123403000243
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800201
Gibson, J. L., Gottfried, J. A., Carpini, M. X. D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2011). The effects of judicial campaign activity on the legitimacy of courts: A survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 545-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910370684
Gibson, J. L., Lodge, M., & Woodson, B. (2014). Losing, but accepting: Legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial authority. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 837-866. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12104
Gibson, J. L., & Nelson, M. J. (2014). The legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional wisdoms and recent challenges thereto. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546
Gibson, J. L., & Nelson, M. J. (2015). Is the U.S. Supreme Court's legitimacy grounded in performance satisfaction and ideology? American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12107
Gibson, J. L., & Nelson, M. J. (2018). Black and blue: How African Americans judge the U.S. legal system. Oxford University Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8 ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hanley, J., Salamone, M., & Wright, M. (2012). Reviving the schoolmaster: Reevaluating public opinion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 408-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911404564
Hoekstra, V. J. (1995). The Supreme Court and opinion change: An experimental study of the Court's ability to change opinion. American Politics Quarterly, 23(1), 109-129.
Hoekstra, V. J., & Segal, J. A. (1996). The shepherding of local public opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb's Chapel. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1079-1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9502300106
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Johnson, T. R., & Martin, A. D. (1998). The public's conditional response to Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 299-309. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585665
Johnston, C. D., & Bartels, B. L. (2010). Sensationalism and sobriety differential media exposure and attitudes toward American courts. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 260-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp096
Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1970(2), i-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1970.tb00783.x
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2016). Social psychology (10 ed.). Cengage Learning.
Klarman, M. (2013). From the closet to the altar: Courts, backlash, and the struggle for same-sex marriage. Oxford University Press.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Lerner, R. (1967). The Supreme Court as republican schoolmaster. Supreme Court Review, 1967, 127-180. https://doi.org/10.1086/scr.1967.3108751
Lin, C.-C. (2020, June 8). Taiwan’s Constitutional Court, adultery and the renaissance of judicial activism. Retrieved from Constitution Net: https://constitutionnet.org/news/taiwans-constitutional-court-adultery-and-renaissance-judicial-activism
Lin, T.-T., Kuo, M.-S., & Chen, H.-W. (2018). Seventy years on: The Taiwan Constitutional Court and judicial activism in a changing constitutional landscape. Hong Kong Law Journal, 48(3), 995-1028.
Linos, K., & Twist, K. (2016). The Supreme Court, the media, and public opinion: Comparing experimental and observational methods. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 223-254. https://doi.org/10.1086/687365
Malhotra, N., & Jessee, S. A. (2014). Ideological proximity and support for the Supreme Court. Political Behavior, 36(4), 817-846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9257-x
Marshall, T. R. (1987). The Supreme Court as an opinion leader: Court decisions and the mass public. American Politics Quarterly, 15(1), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8701500107
McClosky, H., & Brill, A. (1983). The dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. Russell Sage Foundation.
Mondak, J. J. (1990). Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior, 12(4), 363-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992794
Nelson, M. J., & Gibson, J. L. (2017). U.S. Supreme Court legitimacy: Unanswered questions and an agenda for future research. In R. M. Howard & K. A. Randazzo (Eds.), Routledge handbook of judicial behavior (pp. 132-150). Routledge.
Nelson, M. J., & Gibson, J. L. (2019). How does hyperpoliticized rhetoric affect the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy? Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1512-1516. https://doi.org/10.1086/704701
Nelson, M. J., & Gibson, J. L. (2020). Measuring subjective ideological disagreement with the US Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Courts, 8(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1086/704741
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Wm. C. Brown.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Saunders
Siero, F. W., & Doosje, B. J. (1993). Attitude change following persuasive communication: Integrating social judgment theory and the elaboration likelihood model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(5), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230510
Smyth, R. (2024). Public opinion and legitimacy. In L. Epstein, G. Grendstad, U. Šadl, & K. Weinshall (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behaviour (pp. 803-828). Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, S., Brouard, S., & Hönnige, C. (2022). The legitimacy-conferring capacity of constitutional courts: Evidence from a comparative survey experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 61(4), 973-996. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12480
Sturgis, P., Roberts, C., & Smith, P. (2012). Middle alternatives revisited: How the neither/nor response acts as a way of saying “I don’t know”? Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124112452527
Trinkner, R., & Cohn, E. S. (2014). Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 602-617. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000107
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
Tyler, T. R., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men's legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 751-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12055
Tyler, T. R., & Rasinski, K. (1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law & Society Review, 25(3), 621-630. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053729
Warren, M. E. (1999). Conclusion. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and Trust (pp. 346-360). Cambridge University Press.
Woodson, B. (2019). The causes of the legitimacy-conferring and republican schoolmaster capabilities of courts. Journal of Law and Courts, 7(2), 281-303. https://doi.org/10.1086/702741
Zilis, M. (2015). The limits of legitimacy: Dissenting opinions, media coverage, and public responses to Supreme Court decisions. University of Michigan Press.
Zink, J. R., Spriggs, J. F., & Scott, J. T. (2009). Courting the public: The influence of decision attributes on individuals’ views of court opinions. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 909-925. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090793 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
107464006 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107464006 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 400601.pdf | 2466Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
