Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131676
題名: 妨害性自主罪與積極同意模式之探討
A Probe into the Crime of Against Sexual Autonomy and the Model of Affirmative Consent
作者: 余翔愛
Yu, Hsiang-Ai
貢獻者: 許恒達
Hsu, Heng-Da
余翔愛
Yu, Hsiang-Ai
關鍵詞: 積極同意模式
意願
女性主義
謙抑性原則
截堵構成要件
Affirmative Consent
Consent
Feminist
Restraining Criminal Law Principle
Auffangtatbestand
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 2-Sep-2020
摘要: 蓋性侵害犯罪較其他刑法中之犯罪而言,具有受害者多為女性以及被害人承受社會非難之壓力的特徵性,本論文係由將性侵害犯罪視為父權體制存在象徵之女性主義角度所提出的「積極同意模式」,探討妨害性自主罪章中之他人意願,出於筆者能力與篇幅的限制,乃以強制性交罪中他人意願的探討與分析作為論述問題之中心、以女性為研究對象、以實體法為主、並以性交行為之問題為主要論述,思考我國刑法第221條違背意願性交罪之立法是否妥適,是否有適用積極同意模式之可能。隨著女性主義浪潮興起、婦女運動蓬勃,深受美國女性主義影響之我國女性主義法學對現行法律中造成性別不平等的現象提出了批評和改革方向。從而,本文將聚焦於女性主義對於性侵害議題的論述,包括從性的角度如何看待權力關係,以及女性主義興起的運動所帶來的性侵害法律改革。\r\n然而即使妨害性自主罪章歷經1999年修正成違背意願模式,現實上仍因為強姦迷思的存在,造成約會強姦、熟識者強姦等激起民憤與論案例無法被刑法所處理,故而各國紛紛開始有是否要修正性自主罪章的聲音。女性主義對於妨害性自主之立法模式提出了強制模式、消極同意模式、積極同意模式、修正強制模式四種立法模式,比較法上,美國、加拿大、瑞典三國以及國際法庭對於積極同意模式的回應與修法歷程值得我們作為參考借鏡。\r\n本文之論述,乃先就我國、美國、加拿大以及瑞典各國中性侵害法制之個人意願發展歷程與現況與簡介,並參照各國之立法模式,引述國際法庭等相關案例作為議題探討之基礎。而後就當事人意願之定位而為探究,以性自主權為出發點,其次以積極同意模式提倡之理由與所遇批判、衝突中,確立該罪之成立乃建諸於性自主權之侵犯而非暴力。並在確立妨害性自主罪章之中心,應為當事人為該性行為意願之欠缺之後,試圖尋求該意願認定之標準。\r\n最後,本文嘗試從刑法謙抑性此一至高原則探討與積極同意模式的衝突,而在立法論上則是希望以壓迫性自主的程度區別強制性交罪與違背意願性交罪,而非採取「積極同意模式」之立法,以期在社會與論撻伐的價值觀中為女性找到掙脫可能,並在維持刑法謙抑性原則中達到平衡。
Compared with crimes in other criminal laws, the crime of sexual assault has the characteristics that the victims are mostly women and the victims bear the pressure of social condemnation. This thesis is based on the feminist perspective that regards the crime of sexual assault as a symbol of the existence of the patriarchal system. The proposed \"active consent model\" explores the wishes of others in the crime of disruptive autonomy. Due to the limitation of the author`s ability and space, the discussion and analysis of the wishes of others in the crime of compulsory intercourse is the center of the discussion, and women are the research. The object, mainly based on the substantive law, and the issue of sexual intercourse as the main discussion, consider whether the legislation of the crime of sexual intercourse against will in Article 221 of the Criminal Law is appropriate and whether it is possible to apply the positive consent model. With the rise of the feminist wave and the vigorous women`s movement, my country`s feminist jurisprudence, which is deeply influenced by American feminism, has criticized and reformed the phenomenon of gender inequality in current laws. Therefore, this article will focus on feminist discourse on sexual assault, including how to treat power relations from a sexual perspective, and the reform of sexual assault laws brought about by the rise of feminism.\r\nHowever, even if the crime of obstructing sexual autonomy was revised into a pattern against will in 1999, in reality, because of the existence of rape myths, the fact that date rape, acquaintance rape and other cases that arouse public outrage cannot be dealt with by the criminal law, so many countries have started. There is a voice of whether to amend the crime of sexual autonomy. Feminism proposes four legislative models for the legislative model of obstructive autonomy: the mandatory model, the passive consent model, the active consent model, and the revised compulsory model. In comparative law, the United States, Canada, Sweden and the international courts respond to the positive consent model. The course of practice is worthy of our reference.\r\nThe discussion in this article is based on the development process and current situation and brief introduction of the personal will of sexual violation of the legal system in my country, the United States, Canada, and Sweden. With reference to the legislative models of various countries, the International Court of Justice and other relevant cases are cited as the basis for discussion of the topic. Afterwards, we explored the orientation of the parties’ will, starting with sexual autonomy, and secondly, based on the reasons for the positive consent model and the criticisms and conflicts encountered. The establishment of the crime is based on the violation of sexual autonomy rather than violence. . And the center of establishing the crime of obstructing sexual autonomy should be the lack of the willingness of the person involved in the sexual act, and then trying to find the standard for the determination of the willingness.\r\nFinally, this article attempts to explore the conflict with the positive consent model from the supreme principle of the modest and restrained nature of the criminal law. In terms of legislation, it hopes to distinguish between the crime of compulsory intercourse and the crime of unwilling sexual intercourse with the degree of oppressive autonomy, rather than adopting \"active\" The legislation of the \"consent model\" aims to find the possibility for women to break free from the values of society and criticism, and to achieve a balance in maintaining the principle of modest criminal law.
參考文獻: 一、 中文部分\r\n(一) 專書\r\n1. 林山田,刑法各罪論(上),增訂五版,2005年9月。\r\n2. 林山田,刑法通論(上、下冊),增訂十版,2008年1月。\r\n3. 林山田,刑罰學,2005年。\r\n4. 林山田、林東茂、林燦璋,犯罪學,四版,2007年。\r\n5. 林東茂,刑法綜覽,七版,2019年11月。\r\n6. 林鈺雄,刑事訴訟法上冊,九版,2019年9月。\r\n7. 甘添貴,刑法各論(上),修訂五版,2019年9月。\r\n8. 何賴傑、林鈺雄審譯,李聖傑、潘怡宏編譯,王士帆等譯,德國刑法典,2019年7月。\r\n9. 許澤天,刑法各論(二)人格法益篇,2017年。\r\n10. 黃榮堅,基礎刑法學(上),四版,2012年3月。\r\n11. 陳子平,刑法各論(上),四版,2019年。\r\n12. 陳樸生,刑法各論,1954年。\r\n13. 蔡墩銘,刑法各論,修訂十版,2013年8月。\r\n14. 韓忠謨,刑法各論,七版,1982年。\r\n15. 盧映潔,刑法分則新論,修訂十三版,2018年9月。\r\n(二) 論著\r\n1. 何春蕤,豪爽女人——女性主義與性解放,皇冠,1994年9月。\r\n2. 李元貞,眾女成城——臺灣婦運回憶錄(上),女書文化,2014年。\r\n3. 李佳玟,違反罪刑法定的正義-程序正義的鋼索,元照,2014年。\r\n4. 薛允升撰,黃靜嘉編校,讀例存疑重刊本(五),收錄於:艾文博主編,中文研究資料中心研究資料叢書,成文,2010年1月。\r\n5. 趙鳳喈、鮑家麟,中國婦女在法律上之地位(附補篇),稻香,1993年5月。\r\n6. 黃源盛,晚清外國法繼受中「無夫姦」存廢的世紀之爭,高明士編,東亞傳統家禮、教育與國法(一)──家族、家禮與教育,國立臺灣大學出版中心,2005年9月。\r\n7. Freud著,林克明譯,文明的性道德與現代人的不安,《性學三論,愛情心理學》,志文,2002年。\r\n(三) 期刊與專書論文\r\n1. 王如玄,性侵害案件法律規範之修訂與過程,律師雜誌,第212期,頁19-26,1997年5月。\r\n2. 王皇玉,引狼入室,月旦法學教室,第87期,頁26-27,2010年1月。\r\n3. 王皇玉,強制手段與被害人受欺瞞的同意--以強制性交罪為中心,臺大法學論叢,第42卷第2期,頁381-432,2013年6月。\r\n4. 王曉丹,法律敘事的女性主義法學分析──最高法院二十三年上字第四五五四號判例之司法實務,政大法學評論,第106期,頁1-70,2008年12月。\r\n5. 王曉丹,從法社會的觀點論女性主義立法行動-女性主義法學在台灣的實踐及其法律多元主義的面貌,東吳法律學報,第19卷第1期,頁51-78,2007年7月。\r\n6. 王曉丹,破解二元對立,改寫能動主體:性暴力受害者脆弱性的正面意義,女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,第44期,頁77-108,2019年6月。\r\n7. 王曉丹,聆聽失語的被害人:從女性主義法學的角度看熟識者強暴司法審判中的性道德,臺灣社會研究季刊,第80期,頁155-206,2010年。\r\n8. 甘添貴,性侵幼童案之解析與平議,中華法學,第14期,頁35-60,2011年11月。\r\n9. 甘添貴,刑法之謙抑思想,月旦法學雜誌,第24期,頁50-52,1997年5月。\r\n10. 甘添貴,強制性交罪之評析與適用,刑事思潮之奔騰:韓忠謨教授八五冥誕紀念論文集,頁325-358,2000年6月。\r\n11. 李佳玟,近來性侵害犯罪之刑事政策分析—從婦運的角度觀察,中原財經法學,第14期,頁43-112,2005年6月。\r\n12. 李佳玟,說是才算同意(Only Yes Means Yes)--增訂刑法「未得同意性交罪」之芻議,台北大學法學論叢,第103期,頁53-118, 2017年9月。\r\n13. 李聖傑,妨害性自主第三講:類型闡述,月旦法學教室,第23期,頁99-106,2004年9月。\r\n14. 李聖傑,從性自主權思考刑法的性行為,中原財經法學,第10期,頁1-40,2003年6月。\r\n15. 何春蕤,防暴三招,性/別研究《性侵害、性騷擾》專號,第5、6期合刊,頁374-403,1999年6月。\r\n16. 林山田,性與刑法,台灣本土法學雜誌,第2期,頁43-52,1999年 6月。\r\n17. 林山田,評一九九九年的刑法修正,月旦法學雜誌,第51期,頁16-42,1999年7月。\r\n18. 林山田,論刑事制裁法體系的改革,法令月刊,第51卷第10期,頁252-274,1990年10月。\r\n19. 林山田,論強姦罪與輪姦罪,刑事法雜誌,第23卷第1期,頁7-13,1979年2月。\r\n20. 林志潔、吳耀宗、金孟華、劉芳伶、王士帆,性侵害案件無罪原因分析之研究—以強制性交案件為中心,台灣科技法學會,2017年1月。\r\n21. 林志潔、金孟華,「合理」的懷疑?——以女性主義法學觀點檢視性侵害審判之偏見,政大法學評論,第127期,頁117-166,2012年6月。\r\n22. 林東茂,評刑法妨害性自主罪章之修正,月旦法學雜誌,第51期,頁70-80,1999年8月。\r\n23. 林念澄,性侵迷思:定義中的字字珠璣,婦女新知基金會通訊,第326期,頁51-55,2018年1-6月。\r\n24. 林美代、吳姿瑩,沒有同意就是性侵 (only YES means YES)──全球女權運動「積極同意」的倡議、教育與立法推動,婦研縱橫,第108期,頁20-29,2018年4月。\r\n25. 林秀怡、秦季芳,加拿大性自主法律「積極同意模式」實務運作借鏡:Janine Benedet 教授到訪婦女新知座談紀實,婦研縱橫,第105期,頁78-83,2016年10月。\r\n26. 林雅容,家庭暴力防治工作與婦女離婚問題:家庭暴力防治法理念與現況之兩難,台灣社會福利學刊,第4期,頁19-52,2003年11月。\r\n27. 金孟華,美國性侵害相關犯罪之介紹-以紐約州法為例,月旦刑事法評論,第3期,頁54-66,2016年12月。\r\n28. 法思齊,論性侵害犯罪之本質與修正,月旦法學雜誌,第145期,頁96-112,2007年6月。\r\n29. 周愫嫻,影響妨害性自主案件審理過程與判決結果之實證研究,內政部委託研究報告,2003年6月。\r\n30. 周漾沂,從實質法概念重新定義法益:以法主體性論述為基礎,臺大法學論叢,第41卷第3期,頁981-1053,2012年9月。\r\n31. 高金桂,強制性交罪的強致力行使—高雄地方法院九十九年度訴字第四二二號判決評析,月旦法學雜誌,第189期,頁251-262,2011年2月。\r\n32. 吳巡龍,刑事證據法入門-第一講:刑事舉證責任的分配,月旦法學教室,第54期,頁76-87,2007年4月。\r\n33. 吳巡龍,刑事舉證責任與幽靈抗辯,月旦法學雜誌,第133期,頁24-41,2006年5月。\r\n34. 吳秦雯,「優惠性差別待遇」概念之接受、適用與轉化─以我國與法國之「性別」作為優惠標準之比較為中心,憲法解釋之理論與實務第九講,頁313-383,2017年4月。\r\n35. 許玉秀,妨害性自主之強制、乘機與利用權勢—何謂性自主?—兼評台北地院九一年度訴字第四六二號判決,台灣本土法學雜誌,第42期,頁16-36,2003年1月。\r\n36. 許玉秀,妨害性自主罪與打擊錯誤,台灣本土法學雜誌,第2期,頁115-122,1999年6月。\r\n37. 許玉秀,重新學習性自主——勇敢面對問題,月旦法學雜誌,第200期,頁302-323,2012年1月。\r\n38. 許恒達,「行為非價」與「結果非價」—論刑事不法概念的實質內涵,政大法學評論,第114期,頁215-300,2010年4月。\r\n39. 許恒達,刑法法益概念的茁生與流變,月旦法學雜誌,第197期,頁134-151,2011年10月。\r\n40. 許恒達,從貪污的刑法制裁架構反思財產來源不明罪,月旦法學雜誌,第82期,頁141-204,2012年6月。\r\n41. 許福生,刑法妨害性自主罪章修正之評論,刑事法雜誌,第44卷第4期,頁62-96, 2000年8月。\r\n42. 許福生,強姦立法沿革之探討,警學叢刊,第24卷第2期,頁191-214,1993年12月。\r\n43. 許澤天(計畫主持人),最後手段性原則研究成果報告(精簡版),行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,100年10月。\r\n44. 陳昭如,女性主義法學的理論與實踐:一個初步的介紹,近代中國婦女史研究,第6期,頁213-236,1998年8月。\r\n45. 陳昭如,從義務到權利──新舊母性主義下母性保護制度的轉向與重構,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第45卷特刊,頁1095-1162,2016年11月。\r\n46. 陳昭如,基進女性主義的強暴論,思想,第23期,頁207-233,2013年5月。\r\n47. 陳妙芬,當代法學的女性主義運動:一個法哲學史的分析,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第33卷第1期,頁1-47,2004年1月。\r\n48. 陳美華,社會運動團體與立法院的互動──婦女運動團體推動男女平權立法的經驗,新國會新情勢研討會,國策研究院主辦,1999年3月。\r\n49. 黃榮堅,2010年刑事法發展回顧:慾望年代,慾望刑法?,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第40卷特刊,頁1795-1841,2011年10月。\r\n50. 黃榮堅,2012年刑事法發展回顧:法律問題之事實與表述,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第42卷特刊,頁1033-1066,2013年11月。\r\n51. 黃榮堅,刑法上性自主概念之研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,2004年10月。\r\n52. 黃榮堅,刑法增修概說,台灣本土法學雜誌,第2期,頁205-212,1999年6月。\r\n53. 翁育瑄,唐代的姦罪——以唐律為中心的探討,法制史研究,中國法制史學會會刊,第22期,頁15-22,2012年12月。\r\n54. 蔡惟安,Janine Benedet 教授訪臺演講專輯,性侵法律改革作為社會變遷的觸媒:不同意、強制與不平等,婦研縱衡,第105期,頁56-65,2016年10月。\r\n55. 蔡宜文,#MeToo 不僅是性醜聞-請視為一種文化變遷,婦女新知基金會通訊,第326期,頁13-14,2018年1-6月。\r\n56. 蔡聖偉,論強制性交罪違反意願之方法,中研院法學期刊,第18期,頁41-109,2016年3月。\r\n57. 蔡聖偉,臺灣刑法中保護性自主決定的制裁規範—現行法制的介紹以及未來修法的展望,月旦刑事法評論,第3期,頁5-23,2016年12月。\r\n58. 蔡碧玉,刑法部分修正條文重點簡介,月旦法學雜誌,第51期,頁42-55,1999年7月。\r\n59. 張麗卿,醫療糾紛鑑定與刑事責任認定—以戒毒致死案為例,月旦法學雜誌,第157期,頁71-101,2008年6月。\r\n60. 薛智仁,強制性交罪(刑法第二二一條第一項)修正之研究,刑事法雜誌,第44卷第1期,頁84-113,2000年02月。\r\n61. 薛智仁,簡介2016年德國性刑法之修正,月旦刑事法評論,第3期,頁67-80,2016年12月。\r\n62. 劉邦繡,性侵害犯罪防制法之性侵害犯罪新解—以一九九九年修正之刑法妨害性自主罪、妨害風化罪為論述,律師雜誌,第267期,頁86-118,2001年12月。\r\n63. 蘇素娥,審判約會強暴及熟識者強暴,全國律師,第10卷第5期,頁35-43,2016年5月。\r\n64. 盧映潔,「猥褻」二部曲:論公然猥褻罪—兼評台灣高等法院八十六年上易字第一九九號判決、台東地院八十七年易字第五三六號判決、板橋地院八十八年度訴字第一五五六號判決、宜蘭地院八十八年度訴字度二九零號判決,月旦法學雜誌,第102期,頁233-245,2003年11月。\r\n65. 盧映潔,強制性交罪與乘機性交罪之區別,月旦法學教室,第20期,頁16-17,2004年6月。\r\n66. 蕭宏重,古今姦罪立法的對比分析,法制博覽,第30期,2019年11月。\r\n(四) 研討會論文\r\n1. 陳昭如,差異的難題:以性侵害和習俗傳統為例論性別人權公約的涉入實踐,司法院大法官一〇四年度學術研討會-人權公約與我國憲法解釋,2015年12月。\r\n2. 謝煜偉,論刑法謙抑之生成、演變及其當代意義,2014臺灣法理學會年會「法律哲學與刑法」,2014年3月22日。\r\n(五) 學位論文\r\n1. 林志鍵,性自主?性桎梏?-我國刑法性自主犯罪之分析與批判,國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文,2006年7月。\r\n2. 安真慧,從女性主義的觀點看妨害性自主—再論違背意願,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文,2018年12月。\r\n3. 洪銘憲,論我國刑法強制性交罪之發展,國立中正大學法律學系研究所碩士論文,2006年6月。\r\n4. 張峪嘉,性犯罪的刑事立法規範-以性自主權的保障為核心,國立政治大學法律學系研究所碩士論文,2005年6月。\r\n5. 盧言珮,論妨害性自主罪章中之他人意願,東吳大學法學院法律學系碩士論文,2010年1月。\r\n6. 趙若傑,性/自主–重新思考妨害性自主罪的保護法益,國立政治大學法律學系研究所碩士論文,2015年11月。\r\n7. 廖宜寧,乘機性交猥褻罪的規範適用問題—以精神障礙者之性自主權利為中心,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2012年3月。\r\n(六) 法院判決(按時間與年度之先後排序)\r\n1. 最高法院49年度台上字第910號刑事判例。\r\n2. 最高法院52年度台上字第1024號刑事判決。\r\n3. 最高法院56年度台上字第2210號刑事判決。\r\n4. 最高法院76年度台上字第7699號刑事判決。\r\n5. 最高法院92年度台上字第1457號刑事判決。\r\n6. 最高法院103年度台上字第2730號刑事判決。\r\n7. 最高法院106年度台上字第742號刑事判決。\r\n8. 最高法院107年度台上字第1614號刑事判決。\r\n9. 最高法院107年度台上字第3348號刑事判決。\r\n\r\n二、 外文部分\r\n(一) 專書\r\n1. Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988).\r\n2. Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse (1987).\r\n3. Caroline Forell, Donna Matthews, A Law of Her Own: The Reasonable Woman as a Measure of Man (2000).\r\n4. Catherine A. MacKinnon, Sex Equality (2nd ed. 2007).\r\n5. Catherine A. MacKinnon, Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws (2005).\r\n6. D. Kelly Weisberg, Applications of feminist legal theory to women`s lives: sex, violence, work, and reproduction, Temple University Press (1996).\r\n7. Deborah Tuerkheimer, Affirmative Consent, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 13 (2016).\r\n8. Elizabeth Schneider, Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking, Yale University Press (2000).\r\n9. Emilie Buchwald, Pamela R. Fletcher, Martha Roth, Transforming a Rape Culture (1993).\r\n10. George Kateb, Human Dignity (2011).\r\n11. Janet Halley, Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism (2006).\r\n12. Joel Feinberg, Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (1970).\r\n13. Jon Krakauer, Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town (2015).\r\n14. Judith Butler, Against Proper Objects, in Feminism Meets Queer Theory (Weed & Schor, eds. 1997).\r\n15. Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History (1993).\r\n16. Lorenne M.G. Clark & Debra J. Lewis, Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality (1977).\r\n17. Martha Chamallas, Introduction to Feminist Legal Theory (2012).\r\n18. Peggy Reeves Sanday, A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial (Doubleday 1996).\r\n19. Peter Fitzpatrick, Foucault and Law (2010).\r\n20. Peter Westen, The Logic of Consent: The Diversity and Deceptiveness of Consent as a Defense to Criminal Conduct (2004).\r\n21. Stephen J. Schulhofer, Unwanted sex: the culture of intimidation and failure of law (1998).\r\n22. Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1975).\r\n23. Susan Estrich, Real Rape: How The Legal System Victimizes Women Who Say No, Harv. U. Press (1987).\r\n24. Wendy Brown, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (1995).\r\n25. Widdows, Heather, Marway, Herjeet (Eds.) , Women and Violence: The Agency of Victims and Perpetrators (2015).\r\n26. William Blackstone, 2 Commentaries on the Laws of England (1895).\r\n27. Williams, J., Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press (2000).\r\n(二) 期刊與專書論文\r\n1. Alletta Brenner, Resisting Simple Dichotomies: Critiquing Narratives of Victims, Perpetrators and Harm in Feminist Theories of Rape, 36 Harv. J. L. & Gender 503 (2013).\r\n2. Andrew Ashworth, Lucia Zedner, Prevention and criminalization: justifications and limits, 15 New Crim. L. Rev. 542 (2012).\r\n3. Angela P. Harris, Forcible Rape, Date Rape, and Communicative Sexuality: A Legal Perspective, in Date Rape: Feminism, Philosophy, and the Law, The Pennsylvania State University Publish (1996).\r\n4. Athena Katsampes, A Rape by Any Other Name: The Problem of Defining Acts of Protection Deception and the University as a Solution, 24 Va. J. Soc. Pol`y & L. 157 (2017).\r\n5. Aya Gruber, The Feminist War on Crime, 92 Iowa L. Rev. 741 (2007).\r\n6. Bernard E. Harcourt, Corrective Justice as A Principle of Criminal Law: A Prolegomenon, 12 Crim. L. & Phil. 605 (2017).\r\n7. Bridget J. Crawford, Toward a Third-Wave Feminist Legal Theory: Young Women, Pornography and the Praxis of Pleasure, 14 Mich. J. Gender & L. 99 (2007).\r\n8. C. Ashley Saferight, Clear As Mud : Constitutional Concerns With Clear Affirmative Consent, 67 Clev. St. L. Rev. 431 (2019).\r\n9. Catherine A. MacKinnon, Rape Redefined, 10 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 431 (2016).\r\n10. Catharine A. MacKinnon, Reflections on Sex Equality Under the Law, 100 Yale L.J. 1281 (1991).\r\n11. Catherine Pierce Wells, Date Rape and the Law: Another Feminist View, in Date Rape: Feminism, Philosophy, and the Law, The Pennsylvania State University Publish (1996).\r\n12. Chandler Delamater, What \"Yes Means Yes\" Means for New York School: The Positive Effects of New York`s Efforts to Combat Campus Sexual Assault through Affirmative Consent, 79 Alb. L. Rev. 591 (2016).\r\n13. Cristina Carmody Tilley, A Feminist Repudiation of the Rape Shield Laws, 51 Drake L. Rev. 45 (2002).\r\n14. Cristina de Maglie, Punishing Mere Immorality? Skeptical Thoughts from a Comparative Perspective, Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 23 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 323 (2018).\r\n15. David DeMatteo, Meghann Galloway, Shelby Arnold, Unnati Patel , Drexel University, Sexual assault on college campuses: A 50-state survey of criminal sexual assault statutes and their relevance to campus sexual assault, 21 Psychol. Pub. Pol`y & L. 227 (2015).\r\n16. Dominic S. Angiollo, J.D., Risky Sexual Behavior -- The \"Broken Windows\" of Sexual Assault: A Proposal for Universities to Incorporate Targeted Intervention to Bridge the Gap Between Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, 26 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol`y & L. 881 (2018).\r\n17. Donald Dripps, After Rape Law: Will the Turn to Consent Normalize the Prosecution of Sexual Assault? , 41 Akron L. Rev. 957 (2008).\r\n18. Elaine M. Chiu, Culture in Our Midst, 17 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y 231 (2006).\r\n19. Evan Gerstmann, The Constitutional Right to Sexual Autonomy and Affirmative Consent, 2018 Western Political Science Association Annual Conference 7 (Loyola Marymount Univ., 2018).\r\n20. Finley, L., Transcending equality theory: a way out of the maternity and the workplace debate, 86 Colum. L. Rev. 1118 (1986).\r\n21. G. Mitchell, P.E. Tetlock, “An Empirical Inquiry into the Relation of Corrective Justice to Distributive Justice” 3(3) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2006).\r\n22. Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk, The Sex Bureaucracy, 104 Calif. L. Rev. 881, 890 (2016).\r\n23. Janine Benedet, The Sexual Assault of Intoxicated Women, 22 Can. J. WOMEN & L. 435 (2010).\r\n24. Janine Benedet and Isabel Grant, The Sexual Assault of Women with Mental Disabilities: Consent, Capacity and Mistaken Belief, 52 McGill L.J. 243 (2007).\r\n25. Janine Benedet, Marital Rape, Polygamy and Prostitution: Trading Sex Equality for Agency and Choice?, Rev. Const. Stud. 161 (2013).\r\n26. Janet Halley et. al., From the International to the Local in Feminist Legal Responses to Rape, Prostitution/Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking: Four Studies in Contemporary Governance Feminism, 29 Harv. J.L. & Gender 335 (2006).\r\n27. Janet Napolitano, “Only Yes Means Yes”: An Essay on University Policies Regarding Sexual Violence and Sexual Assault, 33 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 387 (2015).\r\n28. Jed Rubenfeld, The Riddle of Rape-by-deception and the Myth of Sexual Autonomy, 122 Yale L. J. 1372 (2013).\r\n29. Jeremy Waldron, Dignity, Rights and Responsibilities, 43 Ariz. St. L. J. 1107 (2012).\r\n30. Jill Elaine Hasday, Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape, 88 Calif. L. Rev. 137 (2000).\r\n31. Kari Hong, A New Mens Rea for Rape: More Convictions and Less Punishment, 55 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 259 (2018).\r\n32. Katharine T. Bartlett, Feminist Legal Methods, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 829 (1990).\r\n33. Katharine T. Bartlett, Gender Law, 1 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol`y 1 (1994).\r\n34. Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, Close Encounters of Three Kinds: On Teaching Dominance Feminism and Intersectionality, 46 Tulsa L. Rev. 151 (2013).\r\n35. Kimberly Peterson, Victim or Villain?: The Effects of Rape Culture and Rape Myths on Justice for Rape Victims, 53 Val. U. L. Rev. 467 (2019).\r\n36. Leslie D. Robinson, It Is What It Is: Legal Recognition Of Acquaintance Rape, 6 Ave Maria L. Rev. 627(2008).\r\n37. Lise Gotell, Governing Heterosexuality through Specific Consent Interrogating the Governmental Effects of J.A., 24 Can. J. WOMEN & L. 359 (2012).\r\n38. Lise Gotell, Rethinking Affirmative Consent in Canadian Sexual Assault Law: Neoliberal Sexual Subjects and Risky Women, 41 Akron L. Rev. 865 (2008).\r\n39. Lois Pineau, Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis, 8 L. & Philosophy 217 (1989).\r\n40. Lois Pineau, Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis, In Date Rape: Feminism, Philosophy, and The Law, The Pennsylvania State University Publish (1996).\r\n41. Martha Chamallas, Consent, Equality, and the Legal Control of Sexual Conduct, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 777 (1988).\r\n42. Martha Chamallas, Past as Prologue: Old and New Feminisms, 17 Mich. J. GENDER & L. 157 (2010).\r\n43. Martha R. Burt, Cultural Myths and Supports for Rape, 38 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. (1980).\r\n44. Michelle J. Anderson, All-American Rape, 79 St. John`s L. Rev. 625 (2005).\r\n45. Michelle J. Anderson, Negotiating Sex, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1401 (2005).\r\n46. Nicholas J. Little, From No Means No to Only Yes Means Yes: The Rational Results of an Affirmative Consent Standard in Rape Law, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 1322, (2005).\r\n47. Noah Hilgert, The Burden of Consent: Due Process and The Emerging Adoption of Affirmative Consent Standard in Sexual Assault Laws, 58 Ariz. L. Rev. 867 (2016).\r\n48. Raquel Kennedy Bergen, Jeffrey L. Edleson, & Claire M. Renzetti eds., Violence Against Women: Classic Papers xi-xiii (2005).\r\n49. Richard Klein, An Analysis of Thirty-Five Years of Rape Reform: A Frustrating Search for Fundamental Fairness, 41 Akron L. Rev. 981 (2008).\r\n50. Robin Charlow, Negotiating Sex: Would It Work?, in Criminal Law Conversations (Paul H. Robinson, Stephen P. Garvey & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, eds. 2009).\r\n51. Robin West, Jurisprudence and Gender, 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1988).\r\n52. Ronet Bachman & Raymond Paternoster, A Contemporary Look at the Effects of Rape Law Reform: How Far Have We Really Come?, 84 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 554 (1993).\r\n53. Rosalind Dixon, Feminist Disagreement (Comparatively) Recast, 31 Harv. J.L. & Gender 277 (2008).\r\n54. Sanford H. Kadish & Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal law and its processes: cases and materials, Boston: Little, Brown (9th ed. 2012).\r\n55. Sharon Marcus, Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention, Gender struggles: Practical approaches to contemporary feminism (2002).\r\n56. Thekla Hansen-Young, Defining Rape: A Means to Achieve Justice in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 6 Chi. J. Int`l L. 479 (2005).\r\n57. Vanessa E. Munro, Constructing Consent: Legislating Freedom and Legistimating Constraint in the Expression of Sexual Autonomy, 41 Akron L. Rev. 923 (2008).\r\n58. Vanessa E. Munro, From Consent to Coercion: Evaluating International and Domestic Frameworks for the Criminalization of Rape, in Rethinking Rape Law: International And Comparative Perspectives 17 (Clare McGlynn & Vanessa E. Munro eds., 2010).\r\n59. Wendy Brown, Neoliberalism And The End Of Liberal Democracy, 7(1) THEORY & EVENT 36 (2003).\r\n60. Wolfgang Schomburg & Ines Peterson, Genuine Consent to Sexual Violence under International Criminal Law, 101 Am. J. Int`l L. 121 (2007).\r\n(三) 各國法院判決\r\n1. Barr v. Barr, 58 Md. App. 569, 473 A.2d 1300 (1984).\r\n2. Broussard v. Broussard, 462 So. 2d 1386 (La. App. 1985).\r\n3. Brown v. States, 127 Wis. 193, 199-200 (1906).\r\n4. Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 537 Pa. 143, 641 A.2d 1161 (1994).\r\n5. Culver v. Culver, 383 So. 2d 817 Miss. (1980).\r\n6. Derbes v. Derbes, 462 So. 2d 302 (La. App. 1985).\r\n7. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363(1970).\r\n8. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577-78 (2003).\r\n9. M.C. v. Bulgaria, ECHR 651 (2003).\r\n10. Moss v. State, 45 So.2d 125, 126 (Miss. 1950).\r\n11. Pappajohn v. The Queen, 2 S.C.R. 120 (Can.) (1980).\r\n12. People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 506 N.Y.2d 18, 497 N.Y.2d 41 (1986).\r\n13. People v. Manigault, 150 AD3d 1331, 2017 WL 1713083 (3d Dep`t 2017).\r\n14. People v. Newton, 8 N.Y.3d 460, 835 N.Y.2d 546, 867 N.Y.2d 397 (2007).\r\n15. People v. Powell, 128 A.D.3d 1174 (Appellant. May 14, 2015).\r\n16. Pfeil v. Pfeil, 100 A.D.2d 725, 473 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1984).\r\n17. R. v. Ewanchuk, 1 S.C.R. 330 (Can.) (1990).\r\n18. R. v. Hutchinson, 1 S.C.R. 346 (Can.) (2014).\r\n19. R. v. J.A., 2 S.C.R. 440 (Can.) (2011).\r\n20. R. v. Letendre, 5 C.R. (4th) 159 (B.C.S.C.) (1991).\r\n21. R. v. Mabior, 2 S.C.R. 584 (Can.) (2012).\r\n22. R. v. Osolin, 4 S.C.R. 595 (Can.) (1993).\r\n23. Respondent v. Gustavo Duarte Mares, Appellant. No. 32145–2–III. (Sept. 24, 2015).\r\n24. Sansregret v. The Queen, 1 S.C.R. 570 (Can.) (1985).\r\n25. State v. Jama, 877 N.W.2d 650, 367 Wis.2d 748, 2016 WL 731932 (App. 2016).\r\n26. State v. Lederer, 299 N.W.2d 457, 99 Wis.2d 430 (App. 1980).\r\n27. State v. Mares, 190 Wash. App. 343 (2015).\r\n28. State v. Prineas, 809 N.W.2d 68, 338 Wis.2d 362 (App. 2011).\r\n29. State v. Schmear, 135 NW2d 842,28 Wis.2d 126 (1965).\r\n30. State v. Stevens, 53 P.3d 356, 311 Mont. 52 (2002).\r\n31. Whittaker v. States, 50 Wis. 519, 520, 522 (1880).\r\n32. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Chamber 1, 2 September 1998.\r\n三、 其他資源\r\n1. 第五屆立法院第六會期第十五次會議紀錄,立法院公報,第九十四卷第六期,2005年1月。\r\n2. Consent,https://www.yesmeansyes.com/consent,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n3. Criminal Code (Sweden) Brottsbalk (1962: 700) as amended in 2018, Chapter 6; Amnesty International, “Sweden: New rape law is historic victory for campaigners” (News story, 23 May 2018),www.politiken.dk/udland/art6611602/Ny-lov-tr%C3%A6der-i-kraft-i-Sverige,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n4. ONLY YES MEANS YES,https://www.westcoastleaf.org/our-work/yes-means-yes/,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n5. California adopts historic `yes means yes` rule on sexual consent,https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/yes-means-yes-california-sexual-consent,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n6. Sexual Violence Myths and Facts,https://www.ourresilience.org/what-you-need-to-know/myths-and-facts/,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n7. 唐律疏議/卷第二十六,https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%94%90%E5%BE%8B%E7%96%8F%E8%AD%B0/%E5%8D%B7%E7%AC%AC%E4%BA%8C%E5%8D%81%E5%85%AD#410_%E5%87%A1%E5%A7%A6,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n8. Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO),www.rm.coe.int/grevio-report-austria-1st-evaluation/1680759619,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n9. Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence Istanbul, 2011.\r\n10. International Criminal Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence,www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/pids/legal-texts/rulesprocedureevidenceeng.pdf.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n11. Section 48(9) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 (Ireland),www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print.html.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n12. Crown Prosecution Service, “What is consent?” www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/what_is_consent_v2.pdf,,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n13. Rape and Sexual Offences Legal Guidance,www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n14. Men must prove a woman said `Yes` under tough new rape rules,www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html?_sm_au_=iVVPDZjVnnHQfH66; www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-ddps-tough-new-rape-guidelines-what-are-they-and-why-are-they-so-important-10011603.html?_sm_au_=iVVPDZjVnnHQfH66.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n15. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), Concluding Observations, Romania, July 2017, CEDAW/C/ROU/CO/7-8,http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fROU%2fCO%2f7-8&Lang=en, para 19(b).,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n16. CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations, Sweden, March 2016, CEDAW/C/SWE/CO/8-9,http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fSWE%2fCO%2f8-9&Lang=en,,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n17. 歐洲委員會網站:www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/210/signatures.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n18. Criminal Code (Sweden) Brottsbalk (1962: 700) as amended in 2018, chapter 6, www.lagen.nu/1962:700#K6,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n19. International, “Sweden: New rape law is historic victory for #MeToo campaigners,” 2018, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/sweden-new-rape-law-is-historic-victory-for-metoo-campaigners/. (Iceland), art 194,www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n20. Amnesty International Portugal, Amnesty International Portugal concerned about gender stereotypes in the ruling of Porto Court of Appeal” 2018,www.amnistia.pt/amnistia-internacional-portugal-preocupada-com-acordao-que-contem-estereotipos-de-genero-com-mensagem-prejudicial-as-vitimas-de-violencia-sexual/; www.publico.pt/2018/10/04/sociedade/noticia/governo-quer-alterar-leis-sobre-crimes-sexuais-1846186.,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n21. The Archived Information announced by U.S. Department of Education’s Of fice for Civil Rights: “Know Your Rights: Title IX Prohibits Sexual Harass ment1 and Sexual Violence Where You Go to School”, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title-ix-rights-201104.html,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n22. Tea Consent, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8&list=PL4iM7lUkCr2jiqR193aVh18mURoiLDG9b&index=2&t=57s,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n23. The Antioch College Sexual Offences Prevention Policy 1(June 8, 1996),https://antiochcollege.edu/campus-life/sexual-offense-prevention-policy-title-ix/,2020年8月10日。\r\n24. 聯合國網站,http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/v-work-ga.htm,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n25. 黃羽飛,擴張強姦定義,真能保護女人嗎?,端傳媒,2016 年 7 月 5 日,https://theinitium.com/article/20160705-opinion-huangyufei-sexualharassment/,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n26. Ayres and Baker, As Military Combats Rape, the Accused Become Collateral Damage, REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS, https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/04/22/as_military_combats_rape_some_accused_are_collateral_damage_.html,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。\r\n27. 行政院性別平等會,https://www.weforum.org/reports/gender-gap-2020-report-100-years-pay-equality,最後閱覽日:2020年8月10日。
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
106652015
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106652015
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
1.pdf1.63 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.