預定討論主題：國民參與刑事審判專題研究
一、比較法制
　１、參與審判部分
　　　陪審制
　　　參審制
　　　併立制
日本裁判員制度
　２、參與犯罪追訴部分
　　　起訴陪審制
　　　檢察審查會
　　　
二、報告課題
1、陪審制度之研究
2、參審制度之研究
3、起訴陪審制度之研究
4、日本檢察審查會
5、我國專家參審試行條例草案之檢討
6、我國國民參審試行條例草案之檢討
7.引進人民參與刑事審判制度與刑事程序的配套(含起訴狀一本; 準備程序; 證據法則; 上訴制度等)
8. 引進人民參與刑事審判與媒體報導之關係
　 預計從制度之沿革、成立之意義及目的、制度之內容及構成、優缺點之比較，進行檢討。司法制度的終極目的在實現社會的公平與正義，而審判的原點，無非在於公平、迅速且正確的解決紛爭。我國刑事審判是否採行國民參與之陪審、參審制或所謂觀審制，就比較法的觀點，有下列幾項觀點及課題，實值得審慎研議：　　第一，關於國民參與司法的必要性問題。重點仍應回歸主權在民，法治觀念的植根以及提昇對司法的信任，均有賦予國民參與司法的機會。尤其，除了權利的觀點外，不可忽視的是，相互尊重以及社會自律的法治責任。相對的，不宜再從國情、人民教育水平或國民性等抽象或意識型態論，一味的否定。職是，一則為強化處分或裁判之妥當性，二則為求落實司法民主化之理念，研議我國是否採行國民參與刑事審判，實屬必要。　　第二，有關憲法層次上的爭議，引進國民參與司法審判是否牴觸憲法第八十一條所定法官獨立審判之精神。該項憲法規定並非排斥國民作為審判主體參與司法的機會？不修憲，逕行引進國民參與司法制度是否構成違憲之問題。第三，與刑事訴訟構造的關係。歷來有不少舊有的看法認為，陪審＝當事人主義；參審＝職權主義，然而此種主張，顯有失偏頗。因為審判主體的設計，與訴訟程序的進行模式，並非一定有如此的侷限。亦即，引進國民參與刑事審判，與訴訟構造如何設計，並無絕對的聯結。就外國法例之比較而言，美國的陪審並非是唯一理想的參與制度，而歐陸各國推行參審，其實也各具特色，德國的參審制僅屬其中一例而已。　　第四，倘若將來採行由職業法官與國民組成合議審理之方式，即參審制度者，應確保國民參與司法的主體性及實質的參與。以兩者之比例關係應如何設計？再者，就實質的參與而言，審判程序中，參審員的權利，不論調查證據抑或判決量刑等，參審員與職業法官應同享有對等的、相同的權限。　　第五，關於適用國民參與刑事審判的案件範圍，應可彈性而做較細緻的設計。採漸進式的開放方式，固亦無妨，惟為確保更多案件可使國民享有參與的機會，從輕微案件開始，例如竊盜、傷害案件等，貼近社會生活體驗刑事司法的處理過程；另一方面，一般民眾對司法較為不信的案件，例如公務員濫權或瀆職案件，亦可列為優先適用的範圍。　　最後，國民參與司法，固然是國民主權原理的實踐，對國民而言，是權利，亦是負擔，故有必要取得國民多數的理解及共識，始能使國民自主而積極的參與司法，建立自律的負責的公民社會。

Scheduled discussion topic: Research on national participation in criminal trials
1. Comparative legal system
1. Participate in the trial part
Jury system
Participation system
parallel system
Japanese referee system
2. Participate in criminal prosecution
Prosecution jury system
procuratorial review committee
　　　
2. Report Topics
1. Research on the jury system
2. Research on the participation system
3. Research on the prosecution jury system
4. Japan Prosecutorial Review Council
5. Review of the draft draft regulations involving the participation of Chinese experts
6. Review of China’s National Participation Trial Bill
7. Introduce people's participation in the criminal trial system and supporting criminal procedures (including a copy of the indictment; preparation procedures; evidence rules; appeal system, etc.)
8. The relationship between the introduction of people’s participation in criminal trials and media reporting
It is expected that the review will be conducted from the perspective of the evolution of the system, the significance and purpose of its establishment, the content and composition of the system, and the comparison of advantages and disadvantages. The ultimate goal of the judicial system is to achieve social fairness and justice, and the origin of trial is nothing more than to resolve disputes fairly, quickly and correctly. From a comparative legal point of view, whether our country's criminal trials should adopt a jury system with national participation, a participating trial system, or a so-called observation system, there are several viewpoints and issues worthy of careful consideration: First, the issue of the necessity of national participation in justice. The focus should still be on returning sovereignty to the people. Rooting the concept of the rule of law and improving trust in the judiciary will give citizens the opportunity to participate in the judiciary. In particular, in addition to the rights perspective, what cannot be ignored is the legal responsibility of mutual respect and social self-discipline. On the contrary, it is no longer appropriate to blindly deny based on abstract or ideological considerations such as national conditions, people’s education level or national character. The first is to strengthen the appropriateness of punishment or judgment, and the second is to implement the concept of judicial democratization. It is necessary to study whether our country should adopt national participation in criminal trials. Second, regarding the controversy at the constitutional level, whether the introduction of citizens to participate in judicial trials violates the spirit of independent trial by judges stipulated in Article 81 of the Constitution. Doesn’t this constitutional provision exclude citizens from the opportunity to participate in justice as trial subjects? Whether it is unconstitutional to introduce citizens to participate in the judicial system without amending the constitution. Third, the relationship with the structure of criminal proceedings. There have always been many old views that jury = party doctrine; trial participation = authority doctrine. However, this view is obviously biased. Because the design of the trial subject and the mode of proceeding with the proceedings do not necessarily have such limitations. In other words, there is no absolute connection between the introduction of citizens to participate in criminal trials and the design of the litigation structure. In terms of comparison of foreign laws, the jury system in the United States is not the only ideal participation system. In fact, the implementation of participation in trials in various European countries has their own characteristics, and the participation system in Germany is just one example. Fourth, if a collegial trial system composed of professional judges and citizens is adopted in the future, that is, the participation system, the subjectivity and substantive participation of citizens in judicial participation should be ensured. How should the proportional relationship between the two be designed? Furthermore, in terms of substantive participation, in the trial process, the rights of the participating judges, whether investigating evidence or making judgments and sentencing, etc., the participating judges and professional judges should enjoy equal and identical authority. Fifth, the scope of cases to which national participation in criminal trials is applicable should be flexible and more detailed. There is no harm in adopting a gradual opening-up approach, but in order to ensure that more cases allow citizens to have the opportunity to participate, start with minor cases, such as theft, injury cases, etc., to experience the criminal justice process close to social life; on the other hand, cases in which the general public has less faith in the judiciary, such as cases of abuse of power or malfeasance by civil servants, can also be listed as priority areas of application. Finally, citizens’ participation in the judiciary is of course a practice of the principle of national sovereignty. It is a right and a burden for citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain the understanding and consensus of the majority of the citizens in order to enable citizens to participate in the judiciary independently and actively and establish a self-disciplined and responsible civil society.

課堂講義

授課教師參考著作 References
1. 1999年4月，傳聞證據，收錄於『刑事訴訟起訴狀一本主義及配套措施』一書，最高法院學術研究會出版，第383—492頁。
2. 1999年12月，司法警察人員「查訪報告」之證據能力，月旦法學第55期，第182—193頁。
3. 2000年11月，現行法下如何落實被告詰問權之保障，月旦法學第66期，第36-47頁。
4. 2000年12月，論刑事訴訟證據法則之修正，律師雜誌255期，第23-46頁。
5. 2001年10月，當事人進行原則下之證據調查與交互詰問，收錄於『刑事訴訟起訴狀一本主義及配套措施』(下)一書，最高法院學術研究會出版，第235—315頁。
6. 2003年6月，刑事訴訟之舉證責任與推定，收錄於『刑事證據法則之新發展』黃東熊教授七秩祝壽論文集一書，第437-494頁。
7. 2003年6月，刑事程序中DNA鑑定之研究，成大法學第五期，第85-119頁。
8. 2003年6月，傳聞法則之理論及其實踐，月旦法學第97期，第85-106頁。
9. 2003年7月，共同被告之調查，律師雜誌，第286期，頁97－135。
10. 2004年7月，傳聞法則與直接審理，月旦法學教室第21期，第133-136頁。
11. 2004年9月，嚴格證明法則，月旦法學教室第23期，第132-136頁。
12. 2004年10月，刑事程序鑑定之證據法則，萬國法律第137期，第32-44頁。
13. 2004年10月，違法證據排除法則之回顧與展望，月旦法學第113期，第27-50頁。
14. 2006年9月，被害人之訊問與具結，月旦法學教室第47期，第22-23頁。
15. 2006年11月，證人未經具結之檢訊筆錄之效力，月旦法學教室第49期，第20-21頁。
16. 2007年4月，偵查中證人之具結與傳聞例外之適用－評九四年台上字三二七七號刑事判決－，台灣法學第93期，第238-258頁。
17. 2007年5月，傳聞法則及其例外之實務運作問題檢討，台灣法學第94期，第128-153頁。
18. 2007年9月，評大法官解釋582號暨592號解釋，收錄於『最高法院裁判與法學理論之實踐』乙書，第651-698頁。
19. 2008年7月，貪瀆犯罪「窩裡反」條款與「刑事免責」之檢討，日新司法年刊，第8期，第96-101頁。
20. 2008年11月，證據能力有無之舉證問題研究，收錄於『刑與思─林山田教授紀念論文集』乙書，第461-491頁。
21. 2008年12月，論檢察官舉證責任與法院職權調查之界限--以最高法院92台上128號刑事判例為中心，收錄於『刑事證據法--最高法院學術研究叢書(16)』，第295-328頁。
22. 2009年1月，我國特別偵查組之現況與未來，檢察新論，第5期，第20-22
23. 2010年4月，當事人一方所為之秘密錄音──評日本千葉地院平成三年三月二十九日判決，裁判時報第2期，第151-158頁。
24. 2010年6月，共同被告於檢察官偵查訊問時所為之陳述之證據能力，台灣法學雜誌第153期，第217-222頁。
25. 2010年8月，醫療刑事訴訟之證明活動，月旦法學雜誌第183期，第5-20頁。
26. 2011年04月，改善我國刑事鑑定制度之芻議-兼論專家證人之地位與功能，全國律師，第15卷第4期，第87-104頁。

Class handouts

Instructor’s reference works References
1. In April 1999, hearsay evidence was included in the book "One-Purpose Doctrine of Criminal Prosecutions and Supporting Measures", published by the Supreme Court Academic Research Association, pp. 383-492.
2. December 1999, the evidentiary ability of judicial police officers’ “investigation reports”, Yuedan Law Journal, Issue 55, pp. 182-193.
3. November 2000, How to implement the protection of the defendant’s right to cross-examine under the current law, Yuedan Law Journal, Issue 66, pp. 36-47.
4. December 2000, on the revision of the law of evidence in criminal proceedings, Lawyer Magazine, Issue 255, pp. 23-46.
5. In October 2001, the parties conducted an evidence investigation and cross-examination based on the principle, which was included in the book "The Doctrine of Single Complaint and Supporting Measures in Criminal Procedure" (Part 2), published by the Supreme Court Academic Research Association, pp. 235-315.
6. In June 2003, the burden of proof and presumptions in criminal proceedings were included in the book "New Developments in Criminal Evidence Laws" by Professor Huang Dongxiong's Seventh Rank Birthday Essays, pp. 437-494.
7. June 2003, Research on DNA Identification in Criminal Procedure, National Cheng Kung University Law Journal Issue 5, pp. 85-119.
8. June 2003, The Theory and Practice of the Hearsay Law, Yuedan Law Issue 97, pp. 85-106.
9. July 2003, investigation of co-defendants, Lawyer Magazine, Issue 286, pp. 97-135.
10. July 2004, Hearsay Rule and Direct Trial, Yuedan Law Classroom No. 21, pp. 133-136.
11. September 2004, Strict Proving Laws, Yuedan Law Classroom No. 23, pp. 132-136.
12. October 2004, Evidence Rules for Criminal Procedure Identification, Law of All Nations Issue 137, pp. 32-44.
13. October 2004, Review and Outlook of the Rules for the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence, Yuedan Law Issue 113, pp. 27-50.
14. September 2006, Victim’s Interrogation and Confirmation, Yuedan Law Classroom Issue 47, pp. 22-23.
15. November 2006, The validity of interrogation transcripts where witnesses have not committed themselves, Yuedan Law Classroom, Issue 49, pp. 20-21.
16. April 2007, Witness's Confirmation and the Application of the Hearsay Exception in Investigation - Comment on the 1994 Taiwanese Criminal Judgment No. 3277 -, Taiwan Jurisprudence Issue 93, pp. 238-258.
17. May 2007, Review of Practical Operation Issues of the Hearsay Rule and its Exceptions, Taiwan Jurisprudence Issue 94, pp. 128-153.
18. In September 2007, the Chief Justice’s Interpretation No. 582 and Interpretation No. 592 were included in the "Supreme Court Judgments and the Practice of Legal Theory" Book B, pages 651-698.
19. July 2008, a review of the "rebellion" clauses and "criminal immunity" for corruption crimes, Nisshin Judicial Annual, Issue 8, pp. 96-101.
20. In November 2008, a study on the evidentiary issue of the ability of evidence was included in Book B of "Crime and Thoughts - Memorial Essays of Professor Lin Shantian", pages 461-491.
21. In December 2008, on the boundaries between the prosecutor’s burden of proof and the court’s authority to investigate—centered on Criminal Case No. 128 on Taiwan 92 of the Supreme Court, included in “Criminal Evidence Law—Supreme Court Academic Research Series (16)”, pages 295-328.
22. January 2009, The current situation and future of China’s special investigation teams, Procuratorial Review, Issue 5, pp. 20-22
23. In April 2010, a secret recording made by one of the parties - Comment on the judgment of the Chiba District Court of Japan on March 29, 2010, Judicial Times No. 2, pp. 151-158.
24. June 2010, the evidentiary ability of the co-defendant’s statements during the prosecutor’s investigation and interrogation, Taiwan Law Journal, Issue 153, pp. 217-222.
25. August 2010, Proof activities in medical criminal proceedings, Yuedan Law Journal, Issue 183, pp. 5-20.
26. April 2011, Preliminary Discussion on Improving China's Criminal Identification System - Also Discussing the Status and Function of Expert Witnesses, National Lawyers, Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 87-104.