政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/52786
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113822/144841 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51798344      線上人數 : 505
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
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/52786


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52786


    題名: 刑事不對稱上度訴制
    A study on the asymmetric appeal in criminal procedure
    作者: 沈宜生
    貢獻者: 段重民
    沈宜生
    關鍵詞: 雙重危險
    不對稱上訴權
    持續性危險
    double jeopardy
    asymmetric appeal powers
    continuing jeopardy
    日期: 2010
    上傳時間: 2012-04-17 09:17:21 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 民國99年5月19日公布施行之「刑事妥速審判法」有禁止檢察官對無罪案件上訴之規定，此項立法類似學理上所稱之「不對稱上訴（asymmetric appeal）」。不對稱上訴為英、美等國家刑事訴訟的一項重要制度，在此刑事程序，被告受有罪判決者得提起上訴，而檢察官對無罪判決卻不得上訴。這種的不對稱上訴權，被認為是刑事訴訟保障被告的措施之一，但也使得刑事程序明顯有利於被告。事實上，美國的不對稱上訴制度，並非成文法所明定，而是從美國聯邦憲法第五修正案之雙重危險禁止條款，經過聯邦最高法院數十年的判例演進，逐漸形成而來。至於英國之不對稱上訴制度，先是普通法的「前已無罪判決(autrefois acquit, former acquittal)」抗辯所發展出來，再以成文法明文加以規定。本文將介紹美、英等國刑事不對稱上訴制度發展的經過暨內涵，。並歸納分析傳統上支持不對稱上訴之理由，尤其是不對稱上訴這種有利於被告之設計的基礎，即數個錯誤之無罪判決比一個錯誤之有罪判決所付出的社會成本低這個理念（寧可錯放數人，不可錯關一人）。最後將討論屬於大陸法系的我國，在刑事訴訟以特別立法限制檢察官對無罪案件上訴之妥適性。
    參考文獻: 一、專書（英文）
    Blackstone, Willian. (1766). Commentaries on the Laws of England. 9th ed., Book 4, chapter 27( Of Trial And Conviction). (1783, reprinted 1978). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Carp, Robert A., Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning. (2004). Judicial Process in America. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
    François Marie Arouet de Voltaire. Voltaire’s Candide, Zadig, and Selected Stories. trans. Donald M. Frame. (1961). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    Israel, Jerold H., Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, and Nancy J. King. (2009). Criminal Procedure and the Constitution: Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text. New York: West Group.
    Law Officer’s Department. (2002). Justice for All: presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, July 2002. London: Stationary Office.
    Posner, Richard A. (1998). Economic Analysis of Law. 5th ed. New York: Aspen Law and Business.
    Quigley, Tim. (1997). Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law. Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell.
    Rudstein, David S. (2004). Double Jeopardy: a Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
    Sigler, Jay A. (1969). Double Jeopardy: The Development of a Legal and Social Policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
    Sprack, John. (2000). Emmins on Criminal Procedure. ( 8th edition). London: Black Stone Press Limited.
    Watson, Alan. (1998). The Digest of Justinian, revised English language edition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Book 48, Title 2, Note 7.
    二、專書（中文）
    王兆鵬，一事不再理，國立台灣大學法學叢書173號（元照），2008年4月。
    許玉秀，刑法導讀，學林分科六法－刑法，2005年版。
    三、期刊論文（英文）
    Amar, Akhil Reed. (1997). ‘Double Jeopardy Law Made Simple’, Yale Law Journal vol. 106(6). pp. 1807-48.
    Bassiouni, M. Cherif. (1993). ‘Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice:Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions’, 3 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. pp.235-288.
    Collins A, Morton N. E. (1994). ‘Likelihood ratios for DNA identification’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A vol.91, June 1994, pp. 6007–6011. PMID 8016106.）
    Comments and Notes. (1965). ‘Twice in Jeopardy’, Yale Law Journal vol. 75(2). pp. 262-321.
    Costa, Jennifer E. (1998). ‘Double Jeopardy and Non Bis in Idem: Principles of Fairness’, UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy vol. 4. p.181-203.
    Fabri, Marco (2007). ‘Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecution Reform in Italy: a Flash Back’, a paper for the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa, 7 September 2007.
    Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2001). ‘How does Double Jeopardy Help Defendants?’, Berkeley Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series vol. Paper 46. pp. 307-401.
    Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2002). ‘Double Jeopardy’s Asymmetric Appeal Rights: What Purpose Do They Serve?’, Boston University Law Review, vol. 82. pp. 341-403.
    Lackey, Robert L. (1976). ‘Double Jeopardy Limitations on Appeals by the Government in Criminal Cases’, Dickinson Law Review vol. 80(3). pp. 525-548.
    Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice. (1987). ‘Report to the Attorney General on Double Jeopardy and Government Appeals of Acquittals (Truth in Criminal Justice)’, Report No. 6, reprinted in 22 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (1989). pp.831-890.
    Panzavolta, Michele. (2005). ‘Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation vol. 30. pp. 577-598.
    Pizzi, William T., and Luca Marafioti. (1992). ‘The New Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: the Difficulties of an Adversarial Trial System on a Civil Law Foundation’, Yale Law Journal of International Law, vol. 17. pp.1-40.
    Poulin, Anne Bowen. (April 2008). ‘Government Appeals in Criminal Cases: the Myth of Asymmetry’, University of Cincinnati Law Review vol. 77. pp. 1-48.
    Sigler, Jay A. (1963). ‘A History of Double Jeopardy’, the American Journal of Legal History vol. 7(4). pp. 283-309.
    Steinglass, Joshua. (1998). ‘The Justice System in Jeopardy: the Prohibition on Government Appeals of Acquittals’ Indiana Law Review, vol. 31. pp. 353-83.
    Stern, Ronald A. (1990). ‘Government Appeals of Sentences: A Constitutional Response to Arbitrary and Unreasonable Sentences’, American Criminal Law Review vol. 18(51). Pp. 71.
    Stith, Kate. (1990). ‘The Risk of Legal Error in Criminal Cases: Some Consequences of the Asymmetry in the Right to Appeal’, The University of Chicago Law Review vol. 57(1). Pp. 1-61.
    Volkert, Adam N. (1984). ‘Fifth Amendment-Double Jeopardy: Two-Tier Trial Systems and the Continuing Jeopardy Principle’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 75, No. 3. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 653-672.
    Westen, Peter. (1980). ‘The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences’, 78 Michigan Law Review, No. 7 (January 1980), pp.1001-1065.
    Westen, Peter, and Richard Drubel. (1978). ‘ Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy’, Supreme Court Review, pp. 81-169.
    Wyngaert, Christine Van Den, and Guy Stessens. (1990). ‘The International Non Bis in Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly vol. 48. pp.779-804.
    四、期刊論文（中文）
    王兆鵬，以一事不再理論再審，月旦法學雜誌，144期，2007年5月，頁171-193。
    王兆鵬，論一事不再理之憲法原則（上），台灣本土法學雜誌，80期，2006年3月，頁51-67。
    王兆鵬，論一事不再理之憲法原則（下），台灣本土法學雜誌，81期，2006年4月，頁41-65。
    何賴傑，從刑事妥速審判法之制定看上訴審之問題- 政策面之檢討，檢察新論，9期，2011年1月，頁2-12。
    林超駿，初論速審法限制檢方對無罪案件之上訴- 美國刑事不對稱上訴法制簡介，司法周刊，1503期，2010年8月5日，2-3版。
    沈宜生，英國的憲政改革與最高法院，司法周刊，1468期，2009年11月26日，2-4版。
    沈宜生，英國刑事上訴制度，法學新論，27期，2010年12月，頁123-158。
    吳巡龍，刑事訴訟與證據法全集，新學林出版股份有限公司，2008年11月一版。
    張升星，「刑事妥速審判法」的立法商榷，台灣法學，143期，2010年1月1日，頁137-147。
    陳運財， 「刑事妥速審判」座談會，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁121-128。
    陳運財， 「刑事妥速審判法草案」評釋，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁105-120。
    陳運財， 不對稱上訴制度之初探，檢察新論，9期，2011年1月，頁65-87。
    錢建榮，「刑事妥速審判」座談會，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁121-128。
    五、網路資料
    Auld. (September 2001). Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales. at http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ (accessed December 22, 2010).
    Coke, Edward. (1642). The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of English (1797ed). available from Google Books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Lawes_of_England (accessed January 1, 2011).
    Court TV Library, Virginia v. Lorena Bobbitt, Circuit Court of Prince William County. at http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/verdicts/bobbitt.html (accessed September 19, 2010).
    Forensic Science Service. Colin Pitchfork — first murder conviction on DNA evidence also clears the prime suspect. at http://www.forensic.gov.uk/html/media/case-studies/ (accessed December 20, 2010).
    Hylton, Keith N., and Vikramaditya S. Khanna. (2001). Toward an Economic Theory of Pro-Defendant Criminal Procedure. downloaded from: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series. at http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/ (accessed December 28, 2010).
    Jeffreys AL, Wilson V, and Thein S. Individual-specific `fingerprints` of human DNA. Nature 1985, 316 (6023): 76–9. PMID 2989708. at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2989708 (accessed December 20, 2010）.
    Judgment No. 26 of the Constitutional Court. Feb 6, 2007. at http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/ActionPagina_328.do (accessed March 26, 2011).
    Linder, Doug. (2001). Jury Nullification, UMKC. at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html (accessed September 19, 2010).
    Linder, Doug. (2001). The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers` in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King. At http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html (accessed October 27, 2010).
    Macpherson Report - Ten Years On. at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/427/42703.htm (accessed October 27, 2010).
    Man faces double jeopardy retrial, BBC News. at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/4426038.stm (accessed December 2, 2010).
    Messitte, Peter J. (2005). The Writ of Certiorari: Deciding Which Cases to Review. from the April 2005 issue of eJournal USA.at http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournalusa.html (accessed October 18, 2010).
    Murder conviction is legal first, BBC News. at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/5150346.stm (accessed December 2, 2010).
    National Institute of Justice. (September 2006). DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents. at http://massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter14, (accessed December 20, 2010).
    Rizzolli, Matteo. (2008). Why Public Prosecutors Cannot Appeal Acquittals. downloaded from SSRN. at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1092885 (accessed December 30, 2010).
    Supreme Court Society of Georgetown University. On the Docket: News on the U.S. Judiciary. at http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/onthedocket/ (accessed May 21, 2011).
    The Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee (1999-2000) HC. The Double Jeopardy Rule. at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/cmhaff.htm (accessed December 21, 2010).
    U.K. Supreme Court, at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html (accessed February18, 2010).
    六、案例
    Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
    Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).
    Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959).
    Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
    Bilu v. Georgia, 435 U.S.223 (1978).
    Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978).
    Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).
    Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978).
    Di Francesco v. United States, 449 U.S. 117 (1980).
    Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
    Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 173 (1873).
    Grady v.Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990).
    Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957).
    Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S.82 (1985).
    Herny v. United States, 61 U.S. 98 (1959).
    In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
    Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 150 (1977).
    Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S.356 (1972).
    Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lyndon, 466 U.S. 294 (1984).
    Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904).
    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
    Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937).
    People v. Simpson, 43 Cal.2d 553 (1995).
    Regina v. Dorking Justice, ex parte Harrington, 3 W.L.R. 142(1984).
    Regina v. Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Chairman), ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] 2 QB 758.
    Regina v Carroll, Q.C.A. 394 (21 September 2001).
    Regina v Carroll (2002), 213 C.L.R. 635; [2002] HCA 55. (Australia 2002).
    Regina v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott , 22 D.L.R.4th 641(Can. 1985).
    Regina v. Story and Another, 140 C.L.R. 364 (Australia 1978).
    Richardson v. United States, 104 S. CT. 2081(1984).
    R v. Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354 .
    R. v Forde [1923] 2 K.B. 400.
    Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54(1978).
    Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377(1975).
    Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
    United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662(1896).
    United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 307-09 (1931).
    United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564(1977).
    United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1(1976).
    United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984).
    United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978).
    Wilson v Colchester Justices [1985] 2 W.L.R. 694, 756.
    七、法典
    U.K. Administration of Justice Act 1960.
    U.K. Access to Justice Act 1999.
    U.K. Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
    U.K. Courts Act 2003.
    U.K. Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
    U.K. Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
    U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1972.
    U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1987.
    U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1988.
    U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1991.
    U.K. Criminal Justice Act 2003.
    U.K. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
    U.K. Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
    U.K. Supreme Court Act 1981.
    U.S. Criminal Procedure, U.S. Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 235, Section 3731.
    Massachusetts General Laws
    Constitution Act 1982, part 1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2007 of the Commonwealth of Australia.
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    法律學研究所
    90651503
    99
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0906515031
    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 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    51503101.pdf523KbAdobe PDF21049檢視/開啟
    51503102.pdf5071KbAdobe PDF23356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