English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 111316/142225 (78%)
造訪人次 : 48393601      線上人數 : 727
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96804


    題名: 禁止國家使用私人違法取得證據之理論基礎 ——兼評最高法院九十七年度台上字 第七三四號判決
    其他題名: The Rationale of the Inadmissibility of Evidence Unlawfully Obtained by a Private Person: A Case Study on Supreme Court Judgement No.97-Tai-Shang-734
    作者: 薛智仁
    Hsueh, Chih-Jen
    關鍵詞: 嚇阻警察違法偵查;私人違法取證;自主性證據取用禁止;禁止國家收贓
    ;Evidence Unlawfully Obtained by a Private Person;Evidence Suppressed by the Court`s Initiative for Violating the Fundamental Rights in the Costitution;Government Shall not Take from a Thief
    日期: 2011-06
    上傳時間: 2016-05-20 16:37:41 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 最高法院近來在許多判決裡，將嚇阻警察違法偵查視為證據使用禁止的基礎理論，並由此推論出，除了強暴、脅迫所取得之供述以外，原則上容許使用私人違法取得之證據。然而，嚇阻違法偵查觀點係奠基於當事人進行主義之上，不適用於我國仍受職權調查原則支配的刑事程序，也不符現行法的法定證據使用禁止規定，故無助於釐清私人違法取證之證據使用禁止難題。本文認為，迄今並無任何觀點能夠有效地將證據使用禁止效果連結到私人取證的違法性，國家能否使用私人違法取得之證據，應依法院調查證據對於被告基本權之干預是否具有合憲性事由而定，私人取證的違法性對此合憲性判斷並無特殊意義。
    Recently, many Supreme Court cases have been of the opinion that the ratio legis behind the exclusionary rule of evidence is to deter future illegal conduct on the part of the police. It follows that evidence illegally obtained by a private person is admissible in principle with the exception of verbal statements collected by means of coercion or intimidation. However, the deterrence rationale derived from the adversarial system is neither applicable to our criminal procedures where the court examines the evidence ex officio nor in conformity with our current statutory exclusionary rules. Therefore, such a rationale is not able to clarify the dilemma on whether evidence obtained illegally by a private person could be admissible in court. This paper argues that since there is no basis for applying an exclusionary rule of evidence to evidence obtained illegally by a private person, whether such evidence should be suppressed in court depends on the courts evaluation on whether the violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights can be justified.
    關聯: 法學評論, 121, 53-105
    資料類型: article
    顯示於類別:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    121(53-105).pdf1000KbAdobe PDF23770檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋