English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89683/119504 (75%)
Visitors : 23939337      Online Users : 99
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124433


    Title: 論警察危害防止與刑事追訴的分與合
    Discussion on Police Deterrence of Danger and Litigation of Criminal
    Authors: 陳英淙
    Chen, Ying-Chung
    Contributors: 法學評論
    Keywords: 危害防止;刑事追訴;警察雙重功能措施;整捆措施;司法行政處分;縮短程序之即時強制;直接強制
    Deterrence of Danger;Litigation of Criminal;Dual Functions of Police;Massnahmenbuendel;Administrative Act on Judicial;Immediate Coercion;Direct Compulsory
    Date: 2017-12
    Issue Date: 2019-07-24 16:01:44 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 行政權與司法權係兩個獨立且相互制衡的運轉機制,警察既隸屬於內政部,復又必須接受檢察官的指揮偵查,故警察任務與職權分屬行政與司法性質乃勢所必然,本文首先探討其危害防止和刑事追訴的本質。再者,行政權與司法權的界限,在警察行使職權時,卻呈現出判斷上及分類上的困難,是為警察雙重功能措施,需予以辨明,此屬於分的層次;反之,刑事訴訟法卻出現「得使用強制力,不得逾越必要程度」的字眼,遭到有否符合法治國明確性原則的質疑,又強制力的種類、強制執行的其他要件,均有深究的必要,這屬於合的範疇。本文於討論上述問題時,均分別指出我國法律制定上、及法律概念上值得商榷之處,並提出判準之道;最後,於文末簡評兩則案例加以印證。
    Executive power and judicial power are two independent mechanisms that check and balance each other under the concept of the separation of powers. While the police is subordinate to the Ministry of Interior, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is subject to the investigations of prosecutors. In this research, the nature of deterrence of danger on executive power and litigation of criminal on judicial power are first discussed. Due to the diverse nature of both executive power and judicial power, difficulties on judgment and classification often occur when the police exercise their power. Hence, the dual functions of police should be clarified to resolve the conflicts. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure states that "... may be arrested by force ..., but such force may not be excessive." The statement has attracted criticism due to its relatively ambiguous definition which violates the principle of clarity of a Legal state. In addition, it is necessary to clarify the different types of force as well as other essential conditions regarding the forced exercise of law. This research aims to discuss the nature of task and duty of police on administration and judicature, the discrimination and combination on deterrence of danger, and the litigation of criminal. Several guidelines on the legislation of law as well as legal concept in Taiwan are also addressed in this research. Two cases studies are further provided to validate the argument stated in this research.
    Relation: 法學評論, 151, 91-150
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/ 10.3966/102398202017120151002
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202017120151002
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    57.pdf1712KbAdobe PDF17View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback