本課程由以下三部分組成：

第一部，國民。以國民參與刑事審判制度為主要討論課題。有關此課題，一般論多從陪審制以及參審制之區別異同出發，而議論途徑可粗分為二，其一、陪審制與參審制二擇一模式，其二、本土化模式:即無所謂二擇一，而係以本土化為中心從兩制中取優捨劣。本課程兩途徑皆不採，改以拆解構成要件式之觀點出發。本課程之關心所在有二，其一、引進國民參與刑事審判制度對量刑之理論與實踐將會有何影響？其二、國民參與刑事審判與言論自由保障之間的關係。

第二部，媒體。以法庭公開播送與知的權利乃至於無罪推定之關係爲檢討中心。刑事法庭是否應該公開播送？對此，呈現出意見正反兩立之對峙狀態。有趣的是，若將正反雙方各該論述對照以觀，我們可以發現，兩方之論據，不乏有立於爭點同一之基礎上，卻呈現立場正相反對之奇妙現象。若細思正反兩方論述，其實不難發現，兩方各係由一個不同的「既定基本信念」所支配，因此才產生在同一爭點上而有截然相反論述之奇妙現象。亦即，反方之既定基本信念是，「信賴」現行的司法體系，而正方之既定基本信念則是，「懷疑」現行的司法體系。 如此來，雙方論戰，恐怕永難聚焦，因為對於現制是「信賴」、抑或「懷疑」，其實只是一種主觀的感覺，並無理論的底蘊加以支持。即便，反方在論述上亦有提及所謂無罪推定的違反或被遺忘權的侵害等論據，但到底如何違背無罪推定，又究竟如何侵害被遺忘權，卻未見有深論者。因此，即便討論到最後，也可能只是淪為信賴者恆信賴之、懷疑者恆懷疑之的循環論戰而已。從而，本課程擬跳脫既定基本信念所支配的主觀感覺，改從具有理論的底蘊之比較法觀點暨比較文化觀點，用一種較為客觀的角度，深入檢視正反兩方之論據，再進一步確認問題所在並指出解決問題之可能方向。

第三部，資訊。擬以電磁紀錄為中心，深入討論搜索扣押制度與監聽制度之關係與區分。2001年刑事訴訟法修正時，在同法122及128條增列「電磁紀錄」，然此是否有助於問題之解決，實屬有疑。按在修法之前，有關電磁紀錄之搜索扣押於我國偵查實務上所浮現的難題，可簡要整理如下五點 ：①難以在ＩＴ系統虛擬空間有效率的搜索並鎖定目標(可能成為證據的電磁紀錄)。②可否委由非檢警人員之ＩＴ專家以鑑定或鑑識方式為之。③若無被處分人的協助，可能無法順利取得所需之數位電子證據；但若被處分人不願協助，依現行法卻又無計可施。④反之，縱使被處分人表示願意協助，惟是否出於真心又有可疑。⑤為了取得與本案有關可為證據之無形的電磁紀錄，現行法允許逕行扣押媒體，如此一來有嚴重侵害隱私之過大扣押的問題。前揭①～④的問題顯然並未因「電磁紀錄」此一文字的增訂而獲得解決。而修法後，雖可解為現行法允許僅就與本案偵查有關之無形的電磁紀錄為扣押，但檢警仍然得扣押可疑存有對象電磁紀錄之電腦等有形的紀錄媒體，故⑤的問題也依舊存在。不僅如此，此一增訂反而在解釋論上引起新問題。按傳統以來將扣押定義為「為保全證據物件為目的，以取得物之占有而實施之強制處分。」 (以下稱「占有剝奪」) ，但以無形的電磁紀錄為直接之處分客體時，則顯難符合此一定義，從而，「電磁紀錄」本身是否為扣押之客體，即生爭議。又依據現行法可否為線上搜索也非無疑。又通訊保障及監察法也以電磁紀錄為對象，那麼，其與對電磁紀錄為搜索，尤其是線上搜索之情形，要如何區分呢？各該問題，皆為我國現行法之解釋適用乃至於立法論上的重要議題，有進一步深入討論之必要。

This course consists of the following three parts:

Part One, National. The main topic of discussion is citizen participation in the criminal trial system. Regarding this topic, most general discussions start from the differences and similarities between the jury system and the trial-participation system, and the discussion approaches can be roughly divided into two. The first is the alternative model between the jury system and the trial-participation system, and the second is the localization model: that is, there is no choice between the two systems, but the choice of the best from the two systems with localization as the center. This course does not adopt either approach, but instead starts from the perspective of dismantling the constituent elements. This course has two concerns. First, what impact will the introduction of citizens' participation in the criminal trial system have on the theory and practice of sentencing? Second, the relationship between citizens’ participation in criminal trials and the protection of freedom of speech.

Part Two, Media. The review focuses on the relationship between court public broadcasts, the right to know and even the presumption of innocence. Should criminal courts be broadcast publicly? In this regard, there is a confrontation between positive and negative opinions. What is interesting is that if we compare the arguments of both sides, we can find that the arguments of both sides are based on the same point of contention, but show the wonderful phenomenon of opposite positions. If you think carefully about the arguments of both sides, it is not difficult to find that each side is dominated by a different "established basic belief", which is why there is a strange phenomenon of completely opposite arguments on the same issue. That is to say, the established basic belief of the negative side is to "trust" the current judicial system, while the established basic belief of the affirmative is to "doubt" the current judicial system. In this way, the debate between the two sides may never be able to focus, because whether "trust" or "doubt" in the current system is actually just a subjective feeling without theoretical foundation to support it. Even though the opposition also mentioned the so-called violation of the presumption of innocence or the infringement of the right to be forgotten, there are no in-depth discussions on how the presumption of innocence is violated and how the right to be forgotten is infringed. Therefore, even if the discussion reaches the end, it may just become a circular debate in which those who believe always rely on it and those who doubt it always doubt it. Therefore, this course intends to break away from the subjective feelings dominated by established basic beliefs, and instead adopt a comparative legal perspective and a comparative cultural perspective with a theoretical background. It uses a more objective perspective to deeply examine the arguments of both sides, and then further confirms the problem and points out possible directions to solve the problem.

Part three, information. It is planned to focus on electromagnetic records to conduct an in-depth discussion on the relationship and distinction between the search and seizure system and the surveillance system. When the Criminal Procedure Law was revised in 2001, "electromagnetic records" were added to Articles 122 and 128 of the same law. However, it is doubtful whether this will help solve the problem. Prior to the amendment of the law, the difficulties that emerged in my country’s investigation practice regarding the search and seizure of electromagnetic records can be briefly summarized as follows: 1. It is difficult to efficiently search and lock targets (electromagnetic records that may become evidence) in the virtual space of IT systems. ② Whether IT experts who are not prosecutors or police officers can be entrusted with identification or identification. ③ Without the assistance of the person being punished, the required digital electronic evidence may not be successfully obtained; but if the person being punished is unwilling to assist, there is nothing that can be done according to the current law. ④ On the contrary, even if the person being punished expresses his willingness to assist, it is doubtful whether he is sincere. ⑤ In order to obtain intangible electromagnetic records that can be used as evidence related to this case, the current law allows the seizure of media. This leads to the problem of excessive seizure that seriously infringes on privacy. The problems mentioned above ①～④ are obviously not solved by the addition of the word "electromagnetic record". After the revision of the law, although the current law allows for the seizure of only intangible electromagnetic records related to the investigation of this case, prosecutors still have to seize tangible recording media such as computers suspected of containing electromagnetic records of objects, so the problem of ⑤ still exists. Not only that, this addition raises new questions in interpretive theory. Seizure has traditionally been defined as "a compulsory disposition carried out to obtain possession of an object for the purpose of preserving evidence." (hereinafter referred to as "deprivation of possession"). However, when intangible electromagnetic records are used as the direct subject of disposition, it is difficult to meet this definition. Therefore, whether the "electromagnetic record" itself is the subject of seizure is controversial. There is also no doubt whether online search is possible according to the current law. Moreover, the Communications Security and Surveillance Act also targets electromagnetic records. So, how to distinguish it from searches for electromagnetic records, especially online searches? Each of these issues is an important issue in the interpretation and application of our country's current laws and even in legislation, and requires further in-depth discussion.

劉芳伶自編教材以及指定參考文獻。
新版教學平台:https://fsis.thu.edu.tw/mosi/ccsd3/index.php?job=moodle&loginn=&r=

Liu Fanling compiled her own textbooks and designated references.
New version of teaching platform: https://fsis.thu.edu.tw/mosi/ccsd3/index.php?job=moodle&loginn=&r=