|Abstract: ||人權係人因其為人與生俱來而應享有之權利，具普遍性，任何社會或政府不得任意剝奪、侵犯。而生命權是所有人權的基礎，死刑係剝奪犯罪人生命權之刑罰，使其與社會永久隔離，堪稱為最嚴厲之刑罰。我國自從2009年公布施行《公民與政治權利國際公約與經濟社會與文化權利國際公約施行法》後，各級政府機關應保護及促進兩公約所保障各項人權之實現。司法機關依據《公民與政治權利國際公約》第6條對生命權保護之精神，定出不同於以往之死刑裁量基準，例如，禁止對於精神或心智障礙者判處及執行死刑；又如死刑僅限於情節最重大之罪。惟，司法實務上仍有不盡理想之處。本論文以文獻探討法、比較研究法及歷史研究法，企圖尋求在符合兩公約與量刑理論應然要求下，建立一套公平、透明、妥適且適用於我國的死刑裁量程序與基準，並作為未來實務與立法參考。 本文結論從我國死刑立法法制與司法實務量刑兩方面提出建議，立法法制方面，立法機關應配合法務部廢除死刑政策，其終極目標亦應廢除死刑，然，未於法律上廢除死刑之前，首要作法對於未造成死亡結果，而仍有死刑規定之犯罪，應廢除死刑之規定，目前，於我國的《刑法》、《毒品危害防制條例》、《民用航空法》、《陸海空軍刑法》與《槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例》中皆有此類規定。其次，應於刑法總則篇增訂死刑之規定，將其限制於直接故意殺人，並造成致命或其他極端嚴重結果的犯罪，若為間接故意、不確定故意殺人之犯罪，為符合公政公約對生命權之保障，應不能判處死刑；第三，於刑法總則篇中增訂禁止對於精神或心智障礙者判處死刑與執行死刑，聯合國人權事務委員會於2005年之2005/59決議第7項第3點針對尚未廢除死刑或仍在執行死刑之締約國，強力要求其不得對任何精神或智能障礙者判處或執行死刑。我國最高法院對於精神障礙者仍有判處死刑之案例，明顯與上述人權事務委員會決議相違，應將此規定明定於刑法總則中；第四、應修改《刑事訴訟法》或《赦免法》落實死刑受刑人有請求赦免之權。司法實務量刑方面，首先，在法律上尚未廢除死刑之前，司法實務上應盡量不宣判死刑，對於非直接故意殺人之犯罪，不可科處死刑；其次，為保障被告之陳述權與聽審權，避免死刑判決淪為「異鄉人」之判決，死刑案件第三審應強制被告到場陳述意見；第三，死刑判決應經合議庭法官一致性決議；第四，對於不符「犯罪情節最嚴重之罪」要件之案件，應不予判處死刑；第五，定罪階段與量刑階段應更換審判成員；第六，事實審並無必要進行量刑辯論，未來於修法時，至少在死刑案件中，定罪階段後，應行量刑辯論；第七，檢察官對具體求處死刑之案件，應於第一審準備程序即提出，並提出量刑資料，以便法院能及早因應，被告亦能及時準備量刑資料證據，法院在審理程序時可進行調查檢察官與被告提出之量刑資料與證據；第八，檢察官應舉證行為人主觀因素及「教化可能性」。|
Human rights, which are rights inherent to human beings, are universal and cannot be abridged and infringed arbitrarily by any society or government. The right-to-life is the foundation of all human rights. The death penalty deprives convicted criminals of their rights to live and separate them from society forever, which can be said to be the harshest punishment. In our country, since the “Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” are promulgated and put in practice in 2009, government agencies at all levels should ensure and promote the realization of all human rights protected by the two covenants The judicial organ formulates standards of capital punishment different from the past based on the spirit of the protection of the right-to-life at article 6 of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. For instance, it is forbidden to sentence and execute the death penalty to the physically and mentally disabled. Another example is the sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes. However, there is still something less than satisfactory in judicial practice. In our essay, the document analysis method, comparative research method and the historical research method are conducted in order to seek and construct a set of procedure and standard of the death penalty, which is fair, transparent, and suitable for our country and in accordance with both the two covenants and the sentencing theory. It can be referenced by future practice and legislation. In the conclusion of our essay, we make suggestions on the aspects of legislative rule of law and the practice of judicial sentence about the death penalty in our country. From the aspect of legislative rule of law, the legislative body should cooperate with the Ministry of Justice on the policy of the abolition of the death penalty; that is, its final goal is abolishing the death penalty. However, before the death penalty is abolished on the law, the first thing we should do is to abolish the death penalty on legal rules for crimes that do not cause death. It can be found on the “Criminal Code of the Republic of China”, “Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act”,” Civil Aviation Act“,” Criminal Code of the Armed Forces”, and” Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act” in our country. Secondly, the death penalty on the General Provisions of the Criminal Code should be restricted to direct and intentional murder crimes which cause death or other extremely severe result. To comply with the protection of right-to-life on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, those who committed murder crimes with dolus indirectus or dolus indeterminatus should not be sentenced to death. Thirdly, we should add a rule to forbid to sentence and execute the death penalty to the physically and mentally disabled on the General Provisions of the Criminal Code. In 2005, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations solemnly urge that for those signatories who do not abolish the death penalty or still administer the death penalty, must not sentence and execute the death penalty to the physically and mentally disabled on section 7, line item 3 of the resolution 2005/59. In our country, there are still cases of sentencing the death penalty to the physically and mentally disabled by the Supreme Court, which obviously violate the resolution of the Human Rights Committee mentioned above and thus the regulation should be stipulated on the General Provisions of the Criminal Code. Last, the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Amnesty Act should be amended in order to ascertain the inmates’ rights to seek pardon. From the aspect of the practice of judicial sentence, first, before the death penalty is abolished on the law, try not to sentence the death penalty to the greatest extent and must not sentence the death penalty to those who do not commit direct and intentional murder crimes. Secondly, in order to protect the right of audience and right to be heard of defendant, the defendant should be forced to be present and state a comment for the third instance in the case of death penalty Thirdly, the sentence of death penalty should be made unanimously by the judges of collegial panel. Fourthly, sentence of death should not be made for those crimes which do not comply with the conditions of the most serious crimes. Fifthly, the member of judgement should be changed between the conviction stage and the sentencing stage. Sixthly, the sentencing debates are not necessarily held on trials on matters of fact; however, at least for the case of death penalty, the sentencing debate should be held after the conviction stage, which should be amended in the future. Seventhly, for the case of death penalty, the prosecutor should recommend the sentence of death and propose information for sentencing in the first instance in order to give not only the defendant enough time to prepare sentencing information and evidence but also the court to investigate the sentencing information and evidence provided by the prosecutor and defendant. Last but not least, the prosecutor should give evidence about the subjective elements and the possibility of correction of the actors.