| dc.creator (作者) | 林鈺雄 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Lin, Yu-Hsiung | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2010-10 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 20-May-2016 14:20:05 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 20-May-2016 14:20:05 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 20-May-2016 14:20:05 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96758 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (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。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 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. | |
| dc.format.extent | 1168350 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 法學評論, 117, 223-267 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 無罪推定原則; 撤銷緩刑; 撤銷假釋; 歐洲人權法院 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Presumption of Innocence; Suspension of Punishment; Parole Retraction; European Court of Human Rights | |
| dc.title (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 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (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 | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
