陳顯武Sian-wu,Chen臺灣大學:國家發展研究所王文和Wang, Wen-HoWen-HoWang2010-05-052018-06-282010-05-052018-06-282008U0001-2201200810204000http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/180057論文摘要 法律之理念不外乎正義。法學上的評價，不問係行為的評價、制度的評價，或評價的標準本身，最後的判斷均與正義有關。 不過，正義有著一張普洛帝斯似的臉（a Protean face），變幻無常、隨時可以呈現不同形狀並具有極不相同的面貌，使人在揭露正義背後所隱含的意義時，往往深感迷惘。這是因為社會現象錯綜複雜，作為評價絕對標準的正義，要因應這些錯綜複雜的現象，予以妥適的評價，結果正義所呈現出來的面貌，自然也是變幻無常。許多世紀以來，思想家與法學家們從哲學的理論高度上，提出了許多各種不盡相同的「正義觀」，儘管這些觀點對實現正義的態度不盡相同，但針對這些在歷史上具有影響的正義理論及其重要社會制度的背景，引用學者見解，作個簡要的敘述，也許可以讓人在指出正義的問題時，能夠減少一些困惑。 法律的秩序要素所關注的，是一個群體或政治社會對某些組織規則和行為標準的採納問題。其秩序概念所關涉的乃是社會生活的形式，而非社會生活的實質。惟「正義」所關注的，則是法律規範和制度性安排的內容、它們對人類的影響以及它們在增進人類幸福與文明建設方面的實質價值。 正義作為文明社會實質價值，係所有價值判斷最終的依據。然正義並不是空洞的口號，而是在面對現實社會的種種現象──不論是行為、制度或評價的標準本身──時，能夠發揮評價的作用，以維繫文明社會所必需事項的目標，亦即：滿足個人的合理的需要和主張，並且與此可以同時促進生產進步和提高社會內聚性的程度。 因此，作為評價絕對標準的正義，其評價也要合乎正義。但由於評價者的立場不同，受評價對象亦形形色色，評價標準本身及評價過程是否合乎正義，遂為極其重要的問題。只有在正義的評價時，能夠正確的詮釋正義所隱含的意義，並在評價對象上予以具體的落實，才能展現出其真正的價值。而所謂「正義的評價」，並非機械地以形式上法秩序的維護為已足，而是以積極地達到上述正義的目標及實現文明社會的實質價值來詮釋正義，不只用以維護儘可能大多數人民的最大利益，亦即：追求正義理念之內容――合目的性公共利益――的極大化；同時，也要儘可能消除或減輕現存之苦難、不製造可避免的、減少不可避免的苦難。在此正義觀之下，因各種不同評價者、評價規範、評價對象所造成各種不同角度的正義觀，勢必經過詮釋、辯證、統合的過程，以形成「互為主體性」而具有客觀性基礎的正義。在這種追求「正義」的理念中，經由不同正義觀形成具有客觀性正義觀的辯證過程，原有各種不同的正義觀必經修正、調整、統合，這種過程，筆者姑稱之為「與正義交易」。其目的（不是出賣正義，而是）在追求正義，是為達到具「共識能力」之客觀性正義的目標與實質價值，就既存的各種不同正義觀所作的調整，這種調整呈現在刑事司法制度上的現象，就是「刑事訴訟原則的功能演變」。故交易的對象絕非唯利益是圖，而是以精神――正義理念――為主，當然其交易程序，也要合乎理性、正義。力分立原則，本來就是緣自人性醜陋面客觀的歷史現實經驗。各國憲政主義先賢們針對政治部門趨利性質的深刻體會，為了避免國家機器被不當濫用，在法制上所設計的「防火牆」。目的在讓有限政府的權力受到制度面的約束，以維護公益，並作保障人民基本權利的重要機制，係奠定近代民主法治國家基礎最偉大的思想理論之一，其出發點也是在維護正義的實質價值。三權分立中，是以司法機關擔任所有法律事實最終的詮釋者、評價者與執行者。由於正義是法價值論的核心問題，司法──尤其是刑事司法──事實的處理，無論是行為的評價、法律的評價，或評價的標準本身，最後的判斷都與正義有關。因此，吾人可以說正義的價值判斷，是司法工作的核心問題。於正義概念關係到權利、要求和義務，所以它與法律觀念有著緊密的聯繫。一個社會在其正義觀的產生了改進和變化時，常常是法律改革的先兆。我國的刑事訴訟法從制定以來，在蟄伏67年後，突然從民國84年起，在短短十餘年內，大幅度翻修將近一半的條文，其潛在的原因，就是因為整體社會的正義觀已經改變，原來存在於刑事訴訟法的正義理念，已經無法滿足當今社會的需求了，故法律的修正，遂成為無可避免的潮流。段期間，恰好是我國在90年代，與「第三波民主轉型運動」世界潮流相呼應所產生的憲政改革運動：憲法在10年內經過6次修正後，緊接著為了落實憲法基本人權的維護，所推動的「司法改革」運動，並正式與憲政改革運動接軌，成為其中的一個重要環結，造成刑事訴訟法整體結構的大翻修。緩起訴制度，就是在這段期間，被引進我國刑事訴訟制度內。項制度，是檢察官起訴裁量權行使的一環，檢察官是廣義的司法機關，其定位如何？此定位在我國刑事訴訟制度上有何意義？檢察官為何有此對被告行為評價的裁量權？有無侵害憲法第80條的法官審判原則？並違背審檢分立原則？有無違反當事人平等原則？有無回復糾問主義色彩而侵害人民權利之虞？以檢察官身分作被告之行為評價，有無正當性？如果檢察官有此裁量權，該如何詮釋才合乎正義？……等問題，為首先須釐清的問題。於我國的緩起訴制度，是一項極具爭議性的制度，其內涵與刑事訴訟的許多基本原則顯有齟齬，為何還要引進？其立法目的為何？而我國的刑事司法改革運動，其刑事訴訟結構的主要改變是什麼？此項制度與此又有何關連？如果既存的刑事訴訟原則是合乎正義，與此抵觸是不正義，而正義是絕不妥協的，只有在必須避免更大的不正義產生時，才能容忍另一種不正義存在，那麼，引進緩起訴制度，是否的有更堅強理由，讓我們理解到，這項不正義的容忍，已達避免更大不正義產生的程度？這是以正義理論針對此項制度規範評價時的重要觀察點。外，我們還須進一步理解緩起訴制度的內涵，及其在新刑事訴訟主要架構――改良式當事人進行主義――下，與其他制度的關連性。同時，也要探討刑事訴訟法修正後，所面臨的衝擊，是否可以面面俱到的實現正義？緩起訴制度在此環境背景下有何刑事司法功能？這些功能是否與合目的性或公益性的正義符合？其間的辯證關係為何？如何修正、調解原有刑事訴訟基本原則的法律理念及緩起訴制度應用時的缺失，才能維持緩起訴制度的刑事司法功能，同時也可避免此項制度施行後因其與刑事訴訟基本原則齟齬可能產生違反平等原則及法律安定性原則等不正義的後果，這種法律理念的評價亦為另一重要課題。此，筆者不揣簡陋，最後針對目前的緩起訴制度的一些問題予以檢討，希望避免緩起訴制度實施時發生不正義的情事，而使該制度的刑事司法功能更能有所發揮，而達到緩起訴制度設計時所預期之合目的性或公益性正義。鍵詞：正義、法價值論、公共利益、辯證法、事物本質、司法改革、起訴Summaryhe idea of law is but justice. Law judgments, including evaluation of behavior, evaluation of system, and the criteria of evaluation, are always related to justice. owever, justice has a “Protean Face”. Its changeable face really confuses people when they try to unveil the implicit meaning behind justice. Justice, the absolute criteria of evaluation, has to handle the complex social phenomena properly. Naturally, the face of justice is changeable. For centuries, thinkers and jurists have proposed various doctrines of justice based on philosophy theory. Although there are some differences between these doctrines, references to the scholars’ opinions and a brief introduction of influential justice doctrines and forming background of important society systems might help to reduce our confusion when we point questions of justice.rder elements of law focus on the question whether a group or public society adopts some organization rules and behavior standards. What the concept of order concerns is the form rather than the substance of society living. Nevertheless, what justice concerns are the content of legal rules and systems, the influence on the mankind, and the substantial value to improve the mankind happiness and civilization construction.ustice, the substantial value of civilized society, is the final resolution of all the value judgments. Nevertheless, justice is not just a slogan. When facing the various phenomena, including behavior, system, or criteria of evaluation, justice should have a function of evaluation to maintain the goal of the necessary of a civilized society. In other words, it should satisfy individual reasonable desire and contention, improve the production, and foster the unity of the society simultaneously.ustice, the absolute criteria of evaluation, should evaluate justly. Because of the differences of grounds of evaluators and the diversity of the evaluated objects, it is of paramount importance that the criteria of evaluation and the process of evaluation work justly. When being justly evaluated, the underlying meaning of justice could be correctly interpreted, concretely realized, and prove its value. The evaluation of justice not only mechanically protects the formal legal order but also actively reaches the above-mentioned goals of justice, and realizes the substantial value of civilized society to maintain the max interest of the majority. In other words, it pursues the maximization of the content of legal idea, purposeful public interest, and does its best to eliminate or abate existing pains, avert avoidable pains, and reduce inevitable pains. In this point of view, all kinds of justice doctrines result from of different evaluators, criteria of evaluation, and evaluated objects have to undergo the process of interpretation, argument, and integration to form intersubjective justice that owns objective basis. When we pursue the idea of justice, through the argument process from diverse justice doctrines to objective justice doctrine, diverse doctrines have to be corrected, adjusted, and integrated. I tentatively name the process ”the negotiation with justice”. Its purpose is to pursue justice and attain the goals of objective justice and substantial value owning the ability to reach a common consensus through the adjustment of diverse justice doctrines. Therefore, we mainly negotiate with the spirit, the idea of justice, rather than the interest. Of course, the process of negotiation should be rational and fair.he principle of separated power results from the objective history reality of the ugly side of the humanity. Based on the deep realization of political departments’ interest-chasing essence, constitutionalism precursors of many countries institute it as a fire wall to limit the government power, maintain public interests, and work as a significant mechanism to guarantee people’s privileges. It is one of the greatest theories building the basis of modern democratic countries ruled of law. Its starting point is also to maintain the substantial value of justice.mong the three separated powers, the judiciary is the final interpreter, evaluator, and executor of all lawful facts. Because justice is the core of the axiology of law, the handling of judicial facts, especially the criminal facts, are all involved with justice, no matter the evaluation of justice, the evaluation of law, or criteria of evaluation. Therefore, we can say that the evaluation of justice is the core of judicial work.ecause the idea of justice is related to rights, requests, and obligations, it has a strong connection with the idea of law. It is usually the sign of law revolution that the idea of justice of a society begins to improve and change. After 67 dormant years of our code of criminal procedure, near half of the articles have been suddenly modified on a large scale from 1995. The underlying reason is that the idea of justice of the whole society changed and the idea of justice existing in the code can’t satisfy the demands of modern society. As a result, the modification of law becomes an inevitable trend. n the period, there was just the movement of constitution reformation going with the stream, the third movement of democracy reformation, in the 1990s. After six amendments of the constitution, the judiciary movement boosted to fulfill the protection of constitution privileges was formally connected with the movement of constitution reformation, became an important part, and led to a major correction of Taiwan’s criminal procedure. It was the time that the deferred prosecution was built into our Taiwan’s criminal procedure. he deferred prosecution is part pf the prosecutorial discretion. Generally speaking, the prosecutor is also the judiciary. However, what is the precise position of the prosecutor? Does the position make any difference in the system of Taiwan’s criminal procedure? Why can the prosecutor have the discretion to evaluate the behaviors of the defendants? Does it violate the principle the principle of the separation of the prosecutor and the judge? Does it infringe the judge’ exclusive jurisdiction which is revealed in Article 80 of the Constitution? Does it violate the principle of the equality of the prosecutor and the defendant? Is it possible to recover inquisitorial system and trespass constitution privileges? Is it legitimate when the defendant’s behavior is evaluated by a prosecutor? How can we justify the discretion of the prosecutor with justice? These subjects are our priorities. ince the deferred prosecution is a controversial system conflicting with many principles of criminal procedure, many questions may arise. Why did we transplant it to Taiwan? What are the legislative goals? What are the main structural changes? How is the relationship between it and the changes? Supposing the existing principles of criminal procedure are just, any conflict with them is unjust, justice is uncompromising, and one injustice is only tolerated when it is necessary to avoid one larger injustice, we may wonder whether the transplantation of the deferred prosecution has a strong basis that our tolerance of the injustice is necessary to avoid one larger injustice. It is an important point of observation to evaluate the system with the justice theory. esides, we have to realize further the content of the deferred prosecution and the relation between it and other systems under the new major structure of criminal procedure, reformatory adversary system. Meanwhile, we have to discuss the coming impact after the modification of the code of the criminal procedure. Is it could fulfill justice in every respect? What kind of judicial function does the deferred prosecution system have in the circumstances? Do these functions comply with the purposeful or public justice? How is the dialectical relation between them? How should we correct and reconcile legal ideas of existing basic criminal procedure principles and disadvantages of the deferred prosecution system to maintain the criminal judiciary function of the deferred prosecution system and to avoid unjust consequences including the violation of the principle of equality and the principle of legal certainty resulted from the confliction between the deferred prosecution system and basic principles of criminal procedure? The evaluation of legal ideas is another important subject.ast, in order to avoid the injustice when the deferred prosecution system is enforced, I modestly discuss some problems of the deferred prosecution system to foster its criminal judiciary function and to reach its anticipated purposeful or public justice.ey words: Justice, Axiology of law, Public Interest, Dialectics, Nature of Things, judicial Reform, Deferred Prosecution目錄試委員審定書………………………………………………… Ⅰ言……………………………………………………………… Ⅳ辭……………………………………………………………… Ⅴ文摘要………………………………………………………… Ⅷ文摘要………………………………………………………… Ⅸ一章 緒論 ………………………………………………… 1一節 問題陳述與研究動機………………………………………1二節 研究目的與範圍……………………………………………3一項 研究目的………………………………………………3二項 研究範圍………………………………………………4 第三節　研究途徑與方法……………………………………………6一項 研究途徑……………………………………………… 6二項 研究方法……………………………………………… 6 第四節 論文架構…………………………………………………… 10二章 與正義交易……………………………………………17一節 對正義理念的理解………………………………………… 18一項 正義思想的發展……………………………………… 18二項 正義的意涵…………………………………………… 33三項 正義在法價值論的意義……………………………… 58四項 小結…………………………………………………… 82二節 「與正義交易」之理論…………………………………… 86一項 正義理念現實化的界限……………………………… 87 第二項 正義理念與法律概念的關聯………………………… 95三項 與正義交易之論點――正義理念現實化過程………109四項 小結……………………………………………………119三節 「與正義交易」在刑事司法之實踐………………………119一項 從制度面觀察――刑事訴訟原則的功能演變………120 二項 從個案判斷面觀察――以首長特別費性質為例……145 三項 檢察官在刑事程序中「與正義交易」的實踐………161 四節 結語……………………………………………………… 171三章 檢察官在刑事訴訟制度上的定位……………………175一節 檢察官制度的形成…………………………………………176一項 歷史回顧………………………………………………176二項 創立檢察官制度之目的………………………………178三項 權力分立原則下的檢察官制度……………………… 179四項 小結……………………………………………………184二節 檢察官的定位………………………………………………187一項 刑事訴訟的基本模式…………………………………187 二項 檢察官定位的類型……………………………………189 三項 小結－兼論我國檢察官應如何定位…………………193三節 檢察官定位在刑事訴訟制度上的意義……………………197一項 在刑事程序組織上的機制………………………… 198 第二項 在刑事程序進行機制上的功能…………………… 253 第三項 在維護公共利益上之角色任務…………………… 287四節 結語……………………………………………………… 308四章　檢察官的起訴裁量……………………………………311一節 起訴裁量的相關問題…………………………………… 311一項 檢察官的法定主義………………………………… 311 第二項 起訴裁量權的內涵………………………………… 316 第三項 起訴裁量的妥當性衡量…………………………… 327 第四項 起訴裁量的種類…………………………………… 346二節 緩起訴制度的理論背景與相關法制…………………… 366 第一項 理論背景…………………………………………… 366 第二項 各國類似制度之立法例…………………………… 380 第三項 小結………………………………………………… 393三節 我國的緩起訴制度……………………………………… 394 第一項 實驗地方法院的緩起訴制度……………………… 394二項 現行的緩起訴制度………………………………… 397三項 我國緩起訴制度的特色…………………………… 403 第四節 結語……………………………………………………… 409五章 現行緩起訴制度的刑事司法功能………………… 412一節 修正刑事訴訟法與改良式當事人進行主義…………… 412 第一項 刑事訴訟的基本架構……………………………… 413二項 改良式當事人進行主義………………………………441三項 改良式當事人進行主義的特色………………………453二節 緩起訴制度在刑事司法「量」的功能………………… 461一項 緩起訴制度上「量」的目的及其意涵…………… 462二項 價值衡量的重心――強化制度的「替代性」………474三項 功能之所在――案件種類的「板塊移動」…………478三節 緩起訴制度在刑事司法「質」的功能………………… 505一項 緩起訴制度上「質」的意涵及其目的………………505二項 價值衡量的重心――制度的「豐富性」……………511三項 功能之所在――轉化作用…………………………… 516 四節 結語……………………………………………………… 529六章 我國緩起訴處分制度之檢討…………………………531一節 法律理論面與實務運作面的檢討……………………… 531一項 憲政理念下緩起訴制度的檢討與評論…………… 532 二項 刑事法理論下緩起訴制度的檢討與評論……………551 三項 實務運作下緩起訴制度的檢討與評論………………563 二節 刑事功能面的檢討…………………………………………567 第一項 「量」的功能之檢討……………………………………567二項 「質」的功能之檢討……………………………………573三節 結語──關於緩起訴處分裁量之建言………………… 582七章 結論………………………………………………… 587考文獻…………………………………………………………595application/pdf3974353 bytesapplication/pdfen-US正義法價值論公共利益辯證法事物本質司法改革緩起訴JusticeAxiology of lawPublic InterestDialecticsNature of Thingjudicial ReformDeferred Prosecution[SDGs]SDG16thesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/180057/1/ntu-97-P92341003-1.pdf