2010-08-012024-05-13https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/644222摘要：研究背景：歷史中，藉由醫學知識協助法院判斷被告之刑事責任能力之案件所在多有。近年來，神經科學之發展，開創了對於法律中刑事責任能力及民事意思能力之實證研究。在法律的神經科學與神經科學為法律所用這兩個層面，已經有許多神經科學與人文學科之文獻之探討，也有外國法院開始處理相關問題，然而對於台灣神經科學與法律現況之實證資料，以及對於相關議題之台灣本土化之神經科學與法律政策，仍付之闕如。研究目的：本研究主要探討下列五個主題：（1）瞭解現行台灣及國外神經科學及法學文獻（以中文、英文及日文為主）對於刑事責任能力及民事意思能力的理論與主要的論點。（2）瞭解台灣的法界人士（包括學界與實務界）對於神經科學與刑事責任能力及民事意思能力關係之看法。（3）瞭解台灣法院關於刑事責任能力及民事意思能力之實際裁判，有哪些部分是神經科學技術可能提供協助的？是否有判決實際上採用神經科學之證據？法院是否遺漏了精神鑑定報告內容所呈現之神經科學議題？（4）探討台灣民眾對於神經科學與刑事責任能力及民事意思能力關係之態度（5）擬定台灣神經科學運用於法學領域之法律政策。研究方法：本計畫分為三年執行：（1）第一年度（2010 年8 月至2011 年7 月）系統化地收集台灣及國外神經科學與刑事責任能力及民事意思能力之文獻，並以立意取樣之方式訪談台灣相關學者與法官，進行整合分析，描畫出具台灣本土色彩之學術版圖。（2）第二年度（2011 年8 月至2012 年7 月）系統化地收集與刑事責任能力及民事意思能力相關之法院裁判文(2001-2011)、精神鑑定報告、及新發表之相關文獻，整合前一年度之資料，建立以台灣實證資料為基礎之神經科學與法律之現況。（3）第三年度（2012 年8 月至2013 年7 月）進行焦點團體訪談，結合前兩個年度之資料，設計問卷，進行社會大眾訪談及資料分析，最後召開專家諮詢會議，整合所有之資料，撰寫台灣神經科學與法律之政策。預期成果及貢獻：（1）開拓台灣法學研究之方法學；（2）建立神經科學與法律發展之台灣基礎實證資料；（3）促進神經科學與法律研究之台灣本土化，並帶入了東方「人觀」的神經科學與法律探討之契機；（4）提升法學學門利用先進神經科學技術進行研究之準備；（5）驗證在民主法治社會中，將大眾意見注入神經科學與法律研究與運用政策之可行性；（6）根據上述資料擬定台灣神經科學與法律之政策。（7）於學術研討會及期刊或專書發表論文。<br> Abstract: Background:In history, the courts often counted on scientific knowledge to make decisions on thedefendants’ responsibility or competence. Recently, neuroscience has advanced and createdmuch empirical evidence related to responsibility and competence. There has beenabundant literature in neuroscience and humanity dealing with the relationships betweenneuroscience and the law: neuroscience of the law and neuroscience for the law. Courts inforeign countries have also started to address related issues. However, systematic analyses ofliterature and empirical data regarding neuroscience, responsibility and competence havebeen lacking in Taiwan. There is urgent need for a customized neuroscience and law policyfor Taiwan.Goals:(1) To have systematic review and understanding of the literature (mainly in Chinese, Englishand Japanese) addressing neuroscience, responsibility and competence.(2) To explore the views of Taiwan scholars in neuroscience, law and judges on neuroscience,responsibility and competence.(3) To gather systematically the decisions of Taiwan courts on responsibility and competenceand have a systematic understanding of (a) in what way neuroscience might offerassistance, (b) whether any court decision applied neuroscience, and (c) whether thecourts omitted neuroscientific issues mentioned in forensic psychiatric examinationreports.(4) To explore the public attitudes＇ towards neuroscience, responsibility and competence.(5) To construct the legal policy regarding neuroscience and law.MethodsThe research will be implemented in consecutive three years:(1) The first year (Aug 2010‐ July 2011)We will collect systematically literature about neuroscience, responsibility and competenceand by purposeful sampling conduct interviews with Taiwan scholars of neuroscience andlaw and judges.(2) The second year (Aug 2011‐ July 2012)We will systematically collect Taiwan court decisions (2001‐2011) and forensic psychiatricexamination reports (2001‐2011) regarding responsibility and competence. After integratingthe data of the previous year, we will establish a solid understanding of the currentrelationship of neuroscience and law in Taiwan. The relevant literature will be updated.(3) The third year (Aug 2012‐ July 2013)We will conduct focus group interviews, surveys of public opinions on neuroscience,responsibility and competence, and convene expert consultation meetings, and finally writeour final reports and address the policy regarding neuroscience and law.Expected results and contribution(1) Broadening the scope of legal research methods in Taiwan.(2) Establishing Taiwan’s basic empirical data regarding the development in neuroscience andlaw.(3) Facilitating the customization of neuroscience and law scholarship in Taiwan and openingthe possibility of introducing Asian philosophical anthropology into the internationalscholarship of neuroscience and law(4) Enhancing the capability of Taiwan legal scholars to conduct neuroscience and law studies(5) Testing the feasibility of integrating public opinions into the policy regarding neuroscienceand law(6) Promulgating the policy on neuroscience and law(7) Making presentations in academic conferences and publishing papers.