政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/96758
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113656/144643 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51748208      線上人數 : 590
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


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96758


    題名: 無罪推定原則於撤銷緩刑及假釋之適用——歐洲法、德國法與我國法之比較評析
    其他題名: The Application of the Principle of Presumption of Innocence in Retraction of Suspension of Punishment and Parole —A Comparative Analysis of the Law in Europe, Germany and Taiwan
    作者: 林鈺雄
    Lin, Yu-Hsiung
    關鍵詞: 無罪推定原則;撤銷緩刑;撤銷假釋;歐洲人權法院
    Presumption of Innocence;Suspension of Punishment;Parole Retraction;European Court of Human Rights
    日期: 2010-10
    上傳時間: 2016-05-20 14:20:05 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 緩刑及假釋由於以受判決人「另犯他罪」為撤銷事由之一，因而引發撤銷法院應否基於無罪推定原則，等待他案審理法院判決或確定之疑慮。此項議題，於我國法、德國法及歐洲法，皆曾有爭論。我國於二○○六年施行的新刑法，明定另犯他罪的撤銷緩刑事由，以他罪「判決確定」為前提，形式上似乎迴避了違反無罪推定原則的疑義，但一來造成刑事政策上此項撤銷事由幾無實益可言，因為通常等到他罪判決確定時本案緩刑期間早已經過，二來同時導致實務捨此事由改以其他門檻較低的撤銷事由，作為撤銷緩刑的依據。\\r 本文從比較法觀點，以歐洲人權法院的標竿裁判——Böhmer v. Germany——為例，並以德國法的回應為輔，說明以上的兩難處境以及可能出路，最後並提出立法論的建議方向，代為結語。
    Since “the commission of another crime” has often been taken as one of the causes leading to the retraction of one’s suspension of punishment or parole, an issue arising from the principle “presumption of innocence” has been discussed: whether the retracting court has to follow the judgment of the court that is trying another crime. The ECHR once expressed its opinion that the principle “presumption of innocence” is violated in the case when the court takes its own guilty finding as the basis of quashing one’s suspension of punishment or parole. However, in Germany the concerns about legal theory and real practice have been aroused by this judgment. In contrast, Taiwanese Criminal Law, in which a settled conviction of another crime is provided as one of the requirements of retraction, offers a rather clear standard. However, in view of the criticisms about the ECHR’s judgment mentioned above, this standard is likely to have shortcomings from the aspect of criminal policy. Besides, there is also a serious contradiction between this requirement and other requirements of retraction in Taiwanese Criminal Law. To adjust this lack of balance in all the causes of retraction, an amendment may prove to be most effective. Otherwise, considering that a settled conviction has been widely adopted as the cause for quashing one’s suspension of punishment and parole in Taiwan, the introduction of more flexible measures are necessary. As in Germany, retraction is never the only legal option to sanction the violation of conditions for suspension of punishment or parole.
    關聯: 法學評論, 117, 223-267
    資料類型: article
    顯示於類別:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    117(223-267).pdf1140KbAdobe PDF21640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