冤案、誤判與死刑：台灣廢死論述與運動之探討

Abstract

死刑爭議在台灣社會已經進行多年的討論，每當社會中有重大刑案發生時，都會掀起一波死刑存廢的討論，但是正反雙方的討論卻越來越對立。台灣廢死運動主要的推動者是以廢死聯盟為核心的幾個人權團體，回顧廢死運動在台灣社會中的興起與推動，可以發現目前廢死運動的進展，與冤案、個案救援、司法改革脫離不了關係，廢死運動者也常以冤案作為廢死的理由之一。因此，本文欲透過深度訪談與文獻分析法，探討誤判論述在廢死運動的重要性與影響力。\n研究發現，目前台灣廢死運動的成果，就是在冤案救援中一步步推進，雖然在倡議廢死的理念時，廢止論者有許多相關論述，但廢死運動者認為冤案較具有故事性，可以做為引領民眾了解死刑議題的開端，也因此廢死運動者大量運用誤判論述對社會宣傳廢死思想。這一點與國外廢死運動的策略是相同的，1976年馬歇爾假設（Marshall hypothesis）出現後，被廢死運動者稱之為新廢止主義（new abolitionism），希望透過增加民眾對於死刑制度的了解，進而傾向廢死。然而臺灣社會經過廢死運動者多年的努力後，支持死刑的民意仍高。以誤判為由而選擇廢除死刑的論點，時常受到挑戰，存置論者認為死刑制度本身有其存在的意義與價值，但誤判是司法制度的缺陷，那麼改革司法才是必要之事，而非廢死。對於廢止論者而言，死刑是司法制度的一部分，沒有完美的司法制度，因此社會中也不可能完全排除死刑誤判的可能性，以此作為廢除死刑的重要論述之一。但是，馬歇爾假設在台灣的運用也出現了一些矛盾的現象，臺灣的廢死運動者尚無法從台灣經驗中得到如馬歇爾假設所預期的結果。

The debate of death penalty has been discussed in Taiwan society for many years. Whenever there is a criminal case in the society, there will trigger extensive discussion about death penalty. However, the discussion about death penalty between supporters and opponents is more and more antagonistic. TAEDP (Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty), the main promoters of abolition in Taiwan, often use the cases of mistaken execution as one of the reasons for the abolition. Therefore, this study wants to explain the importance and influence of misjudgment in the abolitionism through in-depth interviews and literature analysis.\nThe progress of Taiwan abolition movement is advance step by step in the rescue of the innocent. Although the abolitionists have many different arguments of the debate, they believe that the innocent stories are more telling. In order to lead the public to understand the issue of death penalty, abolitionists often use misjudgments to discuss the idea of abolishing. This is the same strategy as the foreign abolition movement. After the Marshall hypothesis appeared in 1976, the abolitionist has been advised to tell more innocent cases to promote the idea of abolition, however, the argument of misjudgment is often challenged. The supporters of death penalty believe that the death penalty has value of its existence and what is should do is not to abolish death penalty, but reform the judicial system. For the abolitionist, on the contrast, the death penalty is a part of the judicial system and it can’t entirely exclude the possibility of misjudgment of the death penalty.