刑事不對稱上度訴制 | NCCU Academic Hub

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

pdf(1042)pdf(3341)

書目匯出

Google Scholar^TM

題名	刑事不對稱上度訴制 A study on the asymmetric appeal in criminal procedure
作者	沈宜生
貢獻者	段重民沈宜生
關鍵詞	雙重危險不對稱上訴權持續性危險 double jeopardy asymmetric appeal powers continuing jeopardy
日期	2010
上傳時間	17-四月-2012 09:17:21 (UTC+8)
摘要	民國99年5月19日公布施行之「刑事妥速審判法」有禁止檢察官對無罪案件上訴之規定，此項立法類似學理上所稱之「不對稱上訴（asymmetric appeal）」。不對稱上訴為英、美等國家刑事訴訟的一項重要制度，在此刑事程序，被告受有罪判決者得提起上訴，而檢察官對無罪判決卻不得上訴。這種的不對稱上訴權，被認為是刑事訴訟保障被告的措施之一，但也使得刑事程序明顯有利於被告。事實上，美國的不對稱上訴制度，並非成文法所明定，而是從美國聯邦憲法第五修正案之雙重危險禁止條款，經過聯邦最高法院數十年的判例演進，逐漸形成而來。至於英國之不對稱上訴制度，先是普通法的「前已無罪判決(autrefois acquit, former acquittal)」抗辯所發展出來，再以成文法明文加以規定。本文將介紹美、英等國刑事不對稱上訴制度發展的經過暨內涵，。並歸納分析傳統上支持不對稱上訴之理由，尤其是不對稱上訴這種有利於被告之設計的基礎，即數個錯誤之無罪判決比一個錯誤之有罪判決所付出的社會成本低這個理念（寧可錯放數人，不可錯關一人）。最後將討論屬於大陸法系的我國，在刑事訴訟以特別立法限制檢察官對無罪案件上訴之妥適性。
參考文獻	一、專書（英文） Blackstone, Willian. (1766). Commentaries on the Laws of England. 9th ed., Book 4, chapter 27( Of Trial And Conviction). (1783, reprinted 1978). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Carp, Robert A., Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning. (2004). Judicial Process in America. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. François Marie Arouet de Voltaire. Voltaire’s Candide, Zadig, and Selected Stories. trans. Donald M. Frame. (1961). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Israel, Jerold H., Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, and Nancy J. King. (2009). Criminal Procedure and the Constitution: Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text. New York: West Group. Law Officer’s Department. (2002). Justice for All: presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, July 2002. London: Stationary Office. Posner, Richard A. (1998). Economic Analysis of Law. 5th ed. New York: Aspen Law and Business. Quigley, Tim. (1997). Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law. Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell. Rudstein, David S. (2004). Double Jeopardy: a Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Sigler, Jay A. (1969). Double Jeopardy: The Development of a Legal and Social Policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Sprack, John. (2000). Emmins on Criminal Procedure. ( 8th edition). London: Black Stone Press Limited. Watson, Alan. (1998). The Digest of Justinian, revised English language edition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Book 48, Title 2, Note 7. 二、專書（中文）王兆鵬，一事不再理，國立台灣大學法學叢書173號（元照），2008年4月。許玉秀，刑法導讀，學林分科六法－刑法，2005年版。三、期刊論文（英文） Amar, Akhil Reed. (1997). ‘Double Jeopardy Law Made Simple’, Yale Law Journal vol. 106(6). pp. 1807-48. Bassiouni, M. Cherif. (1993). ‘Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice:Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions’, 3 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. pp.235-288. Collins A, Morton N. E. (1994). ‘Likelihood ratios for DNA identification’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A vol.91, June 1994, pp. 6007–6011. PMID 8016106.） Comments and Notes. (1965). ‘Twice in Jeopardy’, Yale Law Journal vol. 75(2). pp. 262-321. Costa, Jennifer E. (1998). ‘Double Jeopardy and Non Bis in Idem: Principles of Fairness’, UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy vol. 4. p.181-203. Fabri, Marco (2007). ‘Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecution Reform in Italy: a Flash Back’, a paper for the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa, 7 September 2007. Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2001). ‘How does Double Jeopardy Help Defendants?’, Berkeley Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series vol. Paper 46. pp. 307-401. Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2002). ‘Double Jeopardy’s Asymmetric Appeal Rights: What Purpose Do They Serve?’, Boston University Law Review, vol. 82. pp. 341-403. Lackey, Robert L. (1976). ‘Double Jeopardy Limitations on Appeals by the Government in Criminal Cases’, Dickinson Law Review vol. 80(3). pp. 525-548. Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice. (1987). ‘Report to the Attorney General on Double Jeopardy and Government Appeals of Acquittals (Truth in Criminal Justice)’, Report No. 6, reprinted in 22 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (1989). pp.831-890. Panzavolta, Michele. (2005). ‘Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation vol. 30. pp. 577-598. Pizzi, William T., and Luca Marafioti. (1992). ‘The New Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: the Difficulties of an Adversarial Trial System on a Civil Law Foundation’, Yale Law Journal of International Law, vol. 17. pp.1-40. Poulin, Anne Bowen. (April 2008). ‘Government Appeals in Criminal Cases: the Myth of Asymmetry’, University of Cincinnati Law Review vol. 77. pp. 1-48. Sigler, Jay A. (1963). ‘A History of Double Jeopardy’, the American Journal of Legal History vol. 7(4). pp. 283-309. Steinglass, Joshua. (1998). ‘The Justice System in Jeopardy: the Prohibition on Government Appeals of Acquittals’ Indiana Law Review, vol. 31. pp. 353-83. Stern, Ronald A. (1990). ‘Government Appeals of Sentences: A Constitutional Response to Arbitrary and Unreasonable Sentences’, American Criminal Law Review vol. 18(51). Pp. 71. Stith, Kate. (1990). ‘The Risk of Legal Error in Criminal Cases: Some Consequences of the Asymmetry in the Right to Appeal’, The University of Chicago Law Review vol. 57(1). Pp. 1-61. Volkert, Adam N. (1984). ‘Fifth Amendment-Double Jeopardy: Two-Tier Trial Systems and the Continuing Jeopardy Principle’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 75, No. 3. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 653-672. Westen, Peter. (1980). ‘The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences’, 78 Michigan Law Review, No. 7 (January 1980), pp.1001-1065. Westen, Peter, and Richard Drubel. (1978). ‘ Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy’, Supreme Court Review, pp. 81-169. Wyngaert, Christine Van Den, and Guy Stessens. (1990). ‘The International Non Bis in Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly vol. 48. pp.779-804. 四、期刊論文（中文）王兆鵬，以一事不再理論再審，月旦法學雜誌，144期，2007年5月，頁171-193。王兆鵬，論一事不再理之憲法原則（上），台灣本土法學雜誌，80期，2006年3月，頁51-67。王兆鵬，論一事不再理之憲法原則（下），台灣本土法學雜誌，81期，2006年4月，頁41-65。何賴傑，從刑事妥速審判法之制定看上訴審之問題- 政策面之檢討，檢察新論，9期，2011年1月，頁2-12。林超駿，初論速審法限制檢方對無罪案件之上訴- 美國刑事不對稱上訴法制簡介，司法周刊，1503期，2010年8月5日，2-3版。沈宜生，英國的憲政改革與最高法院，司法周刊，1468期，2009年11月26日，2-4版。沈宜生，英國刑事上訴制度，法學新論，27期，2010年12月，頁123-158。吳巡龍，刑事訴訟與證據法全集，新學林出版股份有限公司，2008年11月一版。張升星，「刑事妥速審判法」的立法商榷，台灣法學，143期，2010年1月1日，頁137-147。陳運財，「刑事妥速審判」座談會，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁121-128。陳運財，「刑事妥速審判法草案」評釋，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁105-120。陳運財，不對稱上訴制度之初探，檢察新論，9期，2011年1月，頁65-87。錢建榮，「刑事妥速審判」座談會，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁121-128。五、網路資料 Auld. (September 2001). Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales. at http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ (accessed December 22, 2010). Coke, Edward. (1642). The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of English (1797ed). available from Google Books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Lawes_of_England (accessed January 1, 2011). Court TV Library, Virginia v. Lorena Bobbitt, Circuit Court of Prince William County. at http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/verdicts/bobbitt.html (accessed September 19, 2010). Forensic Science Service. Colin Pitchfork — first murder conviction on DNA evidence also clears the prime suspect. at http://www.forensic.gov.uk/html/media/case-studies/ (accessed December 20, 2010). Hylton, Keith N., and Vikramaditya S. Khanna. (2001). Toward an Economic Theory of Pro-Defendant Criminal Procedure. downloaded from: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series. at http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/ (accessed December 28, 2010). Jeffreys AL, Wilson V, and Thein S. Individual-specific `fingerprints` of human DNA. Nature 1985, 316 (6023): 76–9. PMID 2989708. at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2989708 (accessed December 20, 2010）. Judgment No. 26 of the Constitutional Court. Feb 6, 2007. at http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/ActionPagina_328.do (accessed March 26, 2011). Linder, Doug. (2001). Jury Nullification, UMKC. at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html (accessed September 19, 2010). Linder, Doug. (2001). The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers` in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King. At http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html (accessed October 27, 2010). Macpherson Report - Ten Years On. at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/427/42703.htm (accessed October 27, 2010). Man faces double jeopardy retrial, BBC News. at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/4426038.stm (accessed December 2, 2010). Messitte, Peter J. (2005). The Writ of Certiorari: Deciding Which Cases to Review. from the April 2005 issue of eJournal USA.at http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournalusa.html (accessed October 18, 2010). Murder conviction is legal first, BBC News. at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/5150346.stm (accessed December 2, 2010). National Institute of Justice. (September 2006). DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents. at http://massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter14, (accessed December 20, 2010). Rizzolli, Matteo. (2008). Why Public Prosecutors Cannot Appeal Acquittals. downloaded from SSRN. at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1092885 (accessed December 30, 2010). Supreme Court Society of Georgetown University. On the Docket: News on the U.S. Judiciary. at http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/onthedocket/ (accessed May 21, 2011). The Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee (1999-2000) HC. The Double Jeopardy Rule. at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/cmhaff.htm (accessed December 21, 2010). U.K. Supreme Court, at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html (accessed February18, 2010). 六、案例 Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972). Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978). Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959). Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). Bilu v. Georgia, 435 U.S.223 (1978). Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978). Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895). Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978). Di Francesco v. United States, 449 U.S. 117 (1980). Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 173 (1873). Grady v.Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990). Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957). Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S.82 (1985). Herny v. United States, 61 U.S. 98 (1959). In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 150 (1977). Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S.356 (1972). Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lyndon, 466 U.S. 294 (1984). Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904). Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937). People v. Simpson, 43 Cal.2d 553 (1995). Regina v. Dorking Justice, ex parte Harrington, 3 W.L.R. 142(1984). Regina v. Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Chairman), ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] 2 QB 758. Regina v Carroll, Q.C.A. 394 (21 September 2001). Regina v Carroll (2002), 213 C.L.R. 635; [2002] HCA 55. (Australia 2002). Regina v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott , 22 D.L.R.4th 641(Can. 1985). Regina v. Story and Another, 140 C.L.R. 364 (Australia 1978). Richardson v. United States, 104 S. CT. 2081(1984). R v. Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354 . R. v Forde [1923] 2 K.B. 400. Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54(1978). Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377(1975). Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895). United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662(1896). United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 307-09 (1931). United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564(1977). United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1(1976). United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984). United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978). Wilson v Colchester Justices [1985] 2 W.L.R. 694, 756. 七、法典 U.K. Administration of Justice Act 1960. U.K. Access to Justice Act 1999. U.K. Constitutional Reform Act 2005. U.K. Courts Act 2003. U.K. Criminal Appeal Act 1968. U.K. Criminal Appeal Act 1995. U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1972. U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1987. U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1988. U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1991. U.K. Criminal Justice Act 2003. U.K. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. U.K. Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. U.K. Supreme Court Act 1981. U.S. Criminal Procedure, U.S. Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 235, Section 3731. Massachusetts General Laws Constitution Act 1982, part 1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2007 of the Commonwealth of Australia.
描述	博士國立政治大學法律學研究所 90651503 99
資料來源	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0906515031
資料類型	thesis

dc.contributor.advisor	段重民	zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者)	沈宜生	zh_TW
dc.creator (作者)	沈宜生	zh_TW
dc.date (日期)	2010	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	17-四月-2012 09:17:21 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.available	17-四月-2012 09:17:21 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間)	17-四月-2012 09:17:21 (UTC+8)	-
dc.identifier (其他識別碼)	G0906515031	en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI)	http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52786	-
dc.description (描述)	博士	zh_TW
dc.description (描述)	國立政治大學	zh_TW
dc.description (描述)	法律學研究所	zh_TW
dc.description (描述)	90651503	zh_TW
dc.description (描述)	99	zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	民國99年5月19日公布施行之「刑事妥速審判法」有禁止檢察官對無罪案件上訴之規定，此項立法類似學理上所稱之「不對稱上訴（asymmetric appeal）」。不對稱上訴為英、美等國家刑事訴訟的一項重要制度，在此刑事程序，被告受有罪判決者得提起上訴，而檢察官對無罪判決卻不得上訴。這種的不對稱上訴權，被認為是刑事訴訟保障被告的措施之一，但也使得刑事程序明顯有利於被告。事實上，美國的不對稱上訴制度，並非成文法所明定，而是從美國聯邦憲法第五修正案之雙重危險禁止條款，經過聯邦最高法院數十年的判例演進，逐漸形成而來。至於英國之不對稱上訴制度，先是普通法的「前已無罪判決(autrefois acquit, former acquittal)」抗辯所發展出來，再以成文法明文加以規定。本文將介紹美、英等國刑事不對稱上訴制度發展的經過暨內涵，。並歸納分析傳統上支持不對稱上訴之理由，尤其是不對稱上訴這種有利於被告之設計的基礎，即數個錯誤之無罪判決比一個錯誤之有罪判決所付出的社會成本低這個理念（寧可錯放數人，不可錯關一人）。最後將討論屬於大陸法系的我國，在刑事訴訟以特別立法限制檢察官對無罪案件上訴之妥適性。	zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents	摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1 關鍵詞．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1 第一章序論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．3 第一節前言．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．3 第二節論文綱要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 8 第二章禁止雙重危險原則．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 17 第一節歷史淵源與發展．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 18 第二節一事不再理原則．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 23 第三節憲法化與國際化．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 26 第三章美國法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 31 第一節憲法條款的演進．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 31 第一階段1896年Ball案．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．31 第二階段1904年Kepner案．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 32 第三階段1957年Green案．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．34 第二節從聯邦法院到州法院．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．39 聯邦法院之結構．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．39 州法院之結構．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 41 1969年 Benton案．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．42 第三節雙重主權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 44 第四節雙事實審．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 48 第五節放寬對其它有利被告裁判之上訴．．．．．．．．．50 第六節美國法總結．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 52 第四章英國法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．55 第一節刑事審判體系．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 56 第二節刑事上訴制度．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 59 治安法院判決之上訴．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．59 皇冠法院之上訴管轄權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．60 高等法院之審理．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 61 皇冠法院一審判決之上訴．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．92 上訴法院之審理．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 62 上訴最高法院．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．64 刑事案件上訴管轄圖表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 66 第三節禁止雙重危險發展出不對稱上訴．．．．．．．．．．67 第四節檢察總長之提交審查權．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 69 法律問題提交審查權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 69 量刑過輕提交審查權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 71 第五節案件陳述方式之上訴權．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 73 第六節聲請許可之上訴權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．75 第七節中間上訴權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 77 第八節妨害司法罪之例外．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．78 第九節新證據之例外．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 80 勞倫斯事件．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 80 麥克芬森報告．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 81 修法運動．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．82 2003年刑事審判法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．84 第十節英國法總結．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．88 第五章其他國家．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 91 第一節普通法國家．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．91 澳大利亞．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．91 加拿大．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．93 第二節大陸法系國家．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 95 第三節義大利之改革．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．101 第六章不對稱上訴權之依據．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 105 第一節禁止無罪上訴之目的．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 106 節省國家司法資源．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 106 減少被告的訴訟費用．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 106 避免不正義的刑罰．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 107 陪審團無罪裁決的終結性．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．108 限制檢察權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．109 減少冤判．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．110 第二節毋枉毋縱與寧縱毋冤．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．114 第三節檢察官上訴權與被告上訴權之差異．．．．．．．．120 上訴權之性質．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 120 上訴權之目的．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 122 檢察官為被告之利益上訴．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 123 限制檢察官上訴權之合理化．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 125 第四節不對稱上訴權之相對化．．．．．．．．．．．．．．127 第七章刑事妥速審判法之不對稱上訴權．．．．．．．．．． 131 第一節訴訟法上之定位．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 131 第二節施行後之初步成效與檢討．．．．．．．．．．．．．136 第八章構思我國刑事上訴制度改革的方向．．．．．．．．． 149 第一節上訴權之憲法內涵．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 151 第二節改良式之不對稱上訴權．．．．．．．．．．．．．．155 第二審為事後審查審及續審之雙軌制．．．．．．．．．．156 第三審為嚴格法律審兼上訴許可之單軌制．．．．．．． 160 參考文獻．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．167 專書（英文）．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．167 專書（中文）．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．167 期刊論文（英文）．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 168 期刊論文（中文）．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 170 網路資料．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 171 案例．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．173 法典．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．175	zh_TW
dc.language.iso	en_US	-
dc.source.uri (資料來源)	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0906515031	en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	雙重危險	zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	不對稱上訴權	zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	持續性危險	zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	double jeopardy	en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	asymmetric appeal powers	en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	continuing jeopardy	en_US
dc.title (題名)	刑事不對稱上度訴制	zh_TW
dc.title (題名)	A study on the asymmetric appeal in criminal procedure	en_US
dc.type (資料類型)	thesis	en
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	一、專書（英文）	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Blackstone, Willian. (1766). Commentaries on the Laws of England. 9th ed., Book 4, chapter 27( Of Trial And Conviction). (1783, reprinted 1978). Oxford: Clarendon Press.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Carp, Robert A., Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning. (2004). Judicial Process in America. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	François Marie Arouet de Voltaire. Voltaire’s Candide, Zadig, and Selected Stories. trans. Donald M. Frame. (1961). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Israel, Jerold H., Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, and Nancy J. King. (2009). Criminal Procedure and the Constitution: Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text. New York: West Group.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Law Officer’s Department. (2002). Justice for All: presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, July 2002. London: Stationary Office.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Posner, Richard A. (1998). Economic Analysis of Law. 5th ed. New York: Aspen Law and Business.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Quigley, Tim. (1997). Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law. Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Rudstein, David S. (2004). Double Jeopardy: a Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Sigler, Jay A. (1969). Double Jeopardy: The Development of a Legal and Social Policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Sprack, John. (2000). Emmins on Criminal Procedure. ( 8th edition). London: Black Stone Press Limited.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Watson, Alan. (1998). The Digest of Justinian, revised English language edition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Book 48, Title 2, Note 7.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	二、專書（中文）	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	王兆鵬，一事不再理，國立台灣大學法學叢書173號（元照），2008年4月。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	許玉秀，刑法導讀，學林分科六法－刑法，2005年版。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	三、期刊論文（英文）	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Amar, Akhil Reed. (1997). ‘Double Jeopardy Law Made Simple’, Yale Law Journal vol. 106(6). pp. 1807-48.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Bassiouni, M. Cherif. (1993). ‘Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice:Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions’, 3 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. pp.235-288.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Collins A, Morton N. E. (1994). ‘Likelihood ratios for DNA identification’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A vol.91, June 1994, pp. 6007–6011. PMID 8016106.）	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Comments and Notes. (1965). ‘Twice in Jeopardy’, Yale Law Journal vol. 75(2). pp. 262-321.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Costa, Jennifer E. (1998). ‘Double Jeopardy and Non Bis in Idem: Principles of Fairness’, UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy vol. 4. p.181-203.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Fabri, Marco (2007). ‘Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecution Reform in Italy: a Flash Back’, a paper for the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa, 7 September 2007.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2001). ‘How does Double Jeopardy Help Defendants?’, Berkeley Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series vol. Paper 46. pp. 307-401.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2002). ‘Double Jeopardy’s Asymmetric Appeal Rights: What Purpose Do They Serve?’, Boston University Law Review, vol. 82. pp. 341-403.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Lackey, Robert L. (1976). ‘Double Jeopardy Limitations on Appeals by the Government in Criminal Cases’, Dickinson Law Review vol. 80(3). pp. 525-548.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice. (1987). ‘Report to the Attorney General on Double Jeopardy and Government Appeals of Acquittals (Truth in Criminal Justice)’, Report No. 6, reprinted in 22 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (1989). pp.831-890.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Panzavolta, Michele. (2005). ‘Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation vol. 30. pp. 577-598.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Pizzi, William T., and Luca Marafioti. (1992). ‘The New Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: the Difficulties of an Adversarial Trial System on a Civil Law Foundation’, Yale Law Journal of International Law, vol. 17. pp.1-40.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Poulin, Anne Bowen. (April 2008). ‘Government Appeals in Criminal Cases: the Myth of Asymmetry’, University of Cincinnati Law Review vol. 77. pp. 1-48.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Sigler, Jay A. (1963). ‘A History of Double Jeopardy’, the American Journal of Legal History vol. 7(4). pp. 283-309.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Steinglass, Joshua. (1998). ‘The Justice System in Jeopardy: the Prohibition on Government Appeals of Acquittals’ Indiana Law Review, vol. 31. pp. 353-83.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Stern, Ronald A. (1990). ‘Government Appeals of Sentences: A Constitutional Response to Arbitrary and Unreasonable Sentences’, American Criminal Law Review vol. 18(51). Pp. 71.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Stith, Kate. (1990). ‘The Risk of Legal Error in Criminal Cases: Some Consequences of the Asymmetry in the Right to Appeal’, The University of Chicago Law Review vol. 57(1). Pp. 1-61.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Volkert, Adam N. (1984). ‘Fifth Amendment-Double Jeopardy: Two-Tier Trial Systems and the Continuing Jeopardy Principle’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 75, No. 3. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 653-672.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Westen, Peter. (1980). ‘The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences’, 78 Michigan Law Review, No. 7 (January 1980), pp.1001-1065.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Westen, Peter, and Richard Drubel. (1978). ‘ Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy’, Supreme Court Review, pp. 81-169.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Wyngaert, Christine Van Den, and Guy Stessens. (1990). ‘The International Non Bis in Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly vol. 48. pp.779-804.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	四、期刊論文（中文）	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	王兆鵬，以一事不再理論再審，月旦法學雜誌，144期，2007年5月，頁171-193。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	王兆鵬，論一事不再理之憲法原則（上），台灣本土法學雜誌，80期，2006年3月，頁51-67。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	王兆鵬，論一事不再理之憲法原則（下），台灣本土法學雜誌，81期，2006年4月，頁41-65。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	何賴傑，從刑事妥速審判法之制定看上訴審之問題- 政策面之檢討，檢察新論，9期，2011年1月，頁2-12。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	林超駿，初論速審法限制檢方對無罪案件之上訴- 美國刑事不對稱上訴法制簡介，司法周刊，1503期，2010年8月5日，2-3版。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	沈宜生，英國的憲政改革與最高法院，司法周刊，1468期，2009年11月26日，2-4版。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	沈宜生，英國刑事上訴制度，法學新論，27期，2010年12月，頁123-158。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	吳巡龍，刑事訴訟與證據法全集，新學林出版股份有限公司，2008年11月一版。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	張升星，「刑事妥速審判法」的立法商榷，台灣法學，143期，2010年1月1日，頁137-147。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	陳運財，「刑事妥速審判」座談會，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁121-128。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	陳運財，「刑事妥速審判法草案」評釋，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁105-120。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	陳運財，不對稱上訴制度之初探，檢察新論，9期，2011年1月，頁65-87。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	錢建榮，「刑事妥速審判」座談會，月旦法學雜誌，177期，2010年2月，頁121-128。	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	五、網路資料	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Auld. (September 2001). Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales. at http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ (accessed December 22, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Coke, Edward. (1642). The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of English (1797ed). available from Google Books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Lawes_of_England (accessed January 1, 2011).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Court TV Library, Virginia v. Lorena Bobbitt, Circuit Court of Prince William County. at http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/verdicts/bobbitt.html (accessed September 19, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Forensic Science Service. Colin Pitchfork — first murder conviction on DNA evidence also clears the prime suspect. at http://www.forensic.gov.uk/html/media/case-studies/ (accessed December 20, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Hylton, Keith N., and Vikramaditya S. Khanna. (2001). Toward an Economic Theory of Pro-Defendant Criminal Procedure. downloaded from: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series. at http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/ (accessed December 28, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Jeffreys AL, Wilson V, and Thein S. Individual-specific `fingerprints` of human DNA. Nature 1985, 316 (6023): 76–9. PMID 2989708. at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2989708 (accessed December 20, 2010）.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Judgment No. 26 of the Constitutional Court. Feb 6, 2007. at http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/ActionPagina_328.do (accessed March 26, 2011).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Linder, Doug. (2001). Jury Nullification, UMKC. at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html (accessed September 19, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Linder, Doug. (2001). The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers` in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King. At http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html (accessed October 27, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Macpherson Report - Ten Years On. at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/427/42703.htm (accessed October 27, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Man faces double jeopardy retrial, BBC News. at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/4426038.stm (accessed December 2, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Messitte, Peter J. (2005). The Writ of Certiorari: Deciding Which Cases to Review. from the April 2005 issue of eJournal USA.at http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournalusa.html (accessed October 18, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Murder conviction is legal first, BBC News. at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/5150346.stm (accessed December 2, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	National Institute of Justice. (September 2006). DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents. at http://massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter14, (accessed December 20, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Rizzolli, Matteo. (2008). Why Public Prosecutors Cannot Appeal Acquittals. downloaded from SSRN. at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1092885 (accessed December 30, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Supreme Court Society of Georgetown University. On the Docket: News on the U.S. Judiciary. at http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/onthedocket/ (accessed May 21, 2011).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	The Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee (1999-2000) HC. The Double Jeopardy Rule. at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/cmhaff.htm (accessed December 21, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Supreme Court, at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html (accessed February18, 2010).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	六、案例	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Bilu v. Georgia, 435 U.S.223 (1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Di Francesco v. United States, 449 U.S. 117 (1980).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 173 (1873).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Grady v.Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S.82 (1985).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Herny v. United States, 61 U.S. 98 (1959).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 150 (1977).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S.356 (1972).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lyndon, 466 U.S. 294 (1984).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	People v. Simpson, 43 Cal.2d 553 (1995).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Regina v. Dorking Justice, ex parte Harrington, 3 W.L.R. 142(1984).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Regina v. Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Chairman), ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] 2 QB 758.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Regina v Carroll, Q.C.A. 394 (21 September 2001).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Regina v Carroll (2002), 213 C.L.R. 635; [2002] HCA 55. (Australia 2002).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Regina v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott , 22 D.L.R.4th 641(Can. 1985).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Regina v. Story and Another, 140 C.L.R. 364 (Australia 1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Richardson v. United States, 104 S. CT. 2081(1984).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	R v. Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354 .	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	R. v Forde [1923] 2 K.B. 400.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54(1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377(1975).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662(1896).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 307-09 (1931).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564(1977).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1(1976).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978).	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Wilson v Colchester Justices [1985] 2 W.L.R. 694, 756.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	七、法典	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Administration of Justice Act 1960.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Access to Justice Act 1999.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Constitutional Reform Act 2005.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Courts Act 2003.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Appeal Act 1968.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Appeal Act 1995.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1972.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1987.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1988.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Justice Act 1991.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Justice Act 2003.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.K. Supreme Court Act 1981.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	U.S. Criminal Procedure, U.S. Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 235, Section 3731.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Massachusetts General Laws	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Constitution Act 1982, part 1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.	zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻)	Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2007 of the Commonwealth of Australia.	zh_TW

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

Google Scholar^TM