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:
The first part is the national. The main discussion subject is the national participation and criminal trial system. Regarding this subject, generally speaking, it is often developed from the differences between the appraisal system and the appraisal system, and the argument can be roughly divided into two types. First, the appraisal system and the appraisal system are two-standard and one-standard mode, and the localization model: that is, there is no such thing as two-standard, but the localization centers on the appraisal system to achieve superiority and inferiority from the two systems. The two courses are not adopted, but are instead developed with disassembly and structured as a component. There are two concerns in this course. First, what impact will the inclusion of the national participation and criminal trial system have on the theory and implementation of sentencing? Second, the relationship between the participation of the nationals and criminal trials and the protection of freedom of speech.
The second part, media. The court broadcasts the right to know and even the presumption of guilt as a review center. Should the criminal court broadcast publicly? In this regard, there is an opinion that the confrontation between positive and negative aspects is presented. Interestingly, if we compare the arguments between the two sides to view, we can find that the discussions between the two sides are based on the same point of conflict, and present a wonderful phenomenon of standing opposites. If you think about the two-way arguments in detail, it is not difficult to find that the two sides are dominated by a different "established basic belief", so they are born at the same point and have the wonderful phenomenon of completely opposite arguments. That is, the established basic belief of the opposing side is the current judicial system of "faith", while the established basic belief of the opposing side is the current judicial system of "doubt". In this way, the two sides' arguments may never focus on it, because the current system is "trust" or "doubt", which is actually just a sense of subjectiveness and unreasonable support. Even though the opposition mentioned the so-called violation of the presumption of guilt or infringement of forgetfulness in the statement, there is no deep discussion on how to violate the presumption of guilt and how to infringement of forgetfulness. Therefore, even in the end, it may be just a circumstantial battle for trustworthy people and doubters to doubt. From then on, this course skips the perception of the subjective rule dominated by established basic beliefs, changes from the theoretically-based comparison and cultural perspective, uses a more object-oriented perspective to deeply examine the discussion between the two sides, and further confirm the problem and point out the possible direction of solving the problem.
Part 3, information. Focusing on electromagnetism records, we will discuss in-depth the relationship and division between the search seizure system and the monitoring system. When the Criminal Disclaimer Law was amended in 2001, the "Electromagnetic Record" was added to Articles 122 and 128 of the same Law. However, it is actually doubtful whether this will help solve the problem. Before the law was revised, there were difficulties that were seized on the investigation of the electromagnetic records in my country. You can sort out the following five points: ① It is difficult to search efficiently in the IT system virtual space and lock the target (maybe the proof electromagnetic records). ② Can I ask IT experts who are not police officers to use calculating or calculating methods to do so? ③ Without the assistance of the person being detained, the required digital electronic certificate may not be obtained successfully; but if the person being detained does not want assistance, there is no plan to implement according to the current law. ④On the contrary, the person being detained expressed his willingness to help, but whether it was sincere or suspicious. ⑤ In order to obtain invisible electromagnetic records related to this case, the current law allows the seizure of the media, which is a problem of excessive seizure of serious infringement of privacy. The previous problems revealed ①~④ are obviously not solved by the addition of the text "electromagnetic record". After the amendment, although it can be explained that the actual law allows only invisible electromagnet records related to the investigation of this case as seizure, the police still have to seize tangible recording media such as computers with suspected electromagnet records, so the problem of ⑤ also exists. Not only that, this addition has caused new problems in the explanation. According to tradition, the seizure definition is "a forced liability implemented for the purpose of preserving the object and obtaining possession of the object." (hereinafter referred to as "occupying liability"), but when an invisible electromagnet record is used as a direct position, it is difficult to meet this certain meaning. From this, whether the "electromagnet record" itself is the seizure guest is a dispute. It is also doubtful that it can be searched online according to the current method. In addition, communication guarantee and monitoring methods also use electromagnetism records as the target. So, how should we distinguish between electromagnetism records as search, especially online search? Each of these issues is an important issue in the interpretation of the current laws of our country and even in legislative discussions, and it is necessary to further discuss in-depth.
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 Fangling self-edited textbooks and designated references.
New version of teaching platform: https://fsis.thu.edu.tw/mosi/ccsd3/index.php?job=moodle&loginn=&r=
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 平時成績平時成績 Regular achievements |
50 | 平時出席、互動、作業。 |
| 期末成績期末成績 Final results |
50 | 期末報告之書面與策展口頭報告表現。 |
