網路城邦

上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇   字體:
探索「身為台灣人」的意義 ~~冤!──徐自強案有罪宣判聲明 ~~ 錯誤立法,矛盾辯白
2009/12/22 09:37:02瀏覽400|回應0|推薦0

探索「身為台灣人」的意義

錯誤立法,矛盾辯白

冤!──徐自強案有罪宣判聲明


陳重安  <友情連結>  12-15-2009

12月9日尤伯祥律師於中國時報發表「妨害司法罪何其重!」社論,批評法務部刑法部分條文修正,增訂了妨害司法罪章,並擴張教唆偽證罪處罰範圍。法務部隨即於當日以新聞稿回應(法務部新聞稿,PDF格式,130KB),然此回應非但未能釋疑,反而更突顯此草案之不合理及法務部之老大心態。分述如下。

首先,被告防禦權源自於無罪推定原則及不自證己罪原則係憲法位階之原則,法律對防禦權之限制都不得與憲法原則相違。簡言之,被告防禦權是在憲法之下運作,受憲法保護。法律只有在合憲的前提下才能對被告防禦權違規制。法務部之聲明,自以為法律為防禦權之終局規則,已係藐視憲法。

其次,關於草案第一六五及一六八條對於教唆偽造、變造、湮滅或隱匿刑事證據之行為,乃至教唆證人、鑑定人、通譯偽證之行為,增訂獨立處罰之規定。依法務部之聲明係為處罰教唆上開行為之人而與被告無涉,然實質上已嚴重侵害被告之防禦權。蓋並非人人皆了解法律,因此辯護律師之功能即在告知權利並分析案情,若禁止任何了解法律之人為前揭告知,無疑係在向所有被告宣示「法律上你有這些權利,但因為你不知道法律,所以你沒有權利」則已與剝奪該權利無異。且該規定過於模糊,違反法明確性原則。例如,法官於開庭時,告知被告有保持緘默之權,使本來不知有此權利之被告知悉並產生行使此權利之『犯意』,進而保持沉默,造成部分事實被隱匿,試問該法官是否構成「教唆隱匿刑事證據罪」。

第三,關於法務部對草案第一七二之一及之二條「騷擾證人罪(對意圖妨害作證、鑑定或翻譯,就自己或他人之案件,騷擾證人、鑑定人、通譯或與其有利害關係之人科處刑罰)」之辯駁,不但自相矛盾且令人噴飯。蓋聲明引用家庭暴力防治法第2條第3款對「騷擾」之定義來定義前揭條文的「騷擾」已係指鹿為馬,且該家暴法明確規定,騷擾者指「『任何』打擾、警告、嘲弄或辱罵他人之言語、動作或製造使人心生畏怖情境之行為。」但法務部聲明卻一面引用該條文一面於該段文末表示草案第一七二之一及之二條之騷擾為「百般騷擾證人」。試問,究竟是指任何打擾還是百般騷擾?法務部自己都搞不清楚,安能草率將草案提出。再者,若檢察官於訊問證人時,重複問相同問題使證人作出前後不一致之陳述,剛好後陳述係與事實不符,則該檢察官有沒有意圖妨礙作證(有希望證人作出與第一次真實陳述相異內容之意圖)而騷擾(重複問相同問題)證人,而構成本罪。

草案第一七二之三條妄言司法罪(對於持有或知悉證據資料之人,在訴訟程序終結前,將證據資料重要部分於訴訟程序外為不正當之使用者科處刑罰。)依其文義,指以任何形式知悉重要證據資料之人,於訴訟程序外為不正當使用,即違刑章。法務部聲明卻自行將該條文龜縮至不包括「依法庭旁聽所得知之訊息」已足見該草案之荒謬。其次,何謂「不正當使用」若社會瀰漫對被告不利之氣氛已可能影響審判之公正,辯護律師適時揭露對被告有利之事證以平衡輿論爭取公正審判,是否算是正當使用?蓋法務部既已自認輿論對審判或有影響,則當發生不利於被告之影響時,被告或被告之辯護人有沒有權利加以導正?還是法務部認為,「眾人皆約可殺」時,為正當影響,企圖使輿論同情被告,即為「不正當影響」?再者,「訴訟程序終結前」所指為何,若指案件完全確定且無再審或非常上訴之可能,則該期將可能長達十餘年,在此期間,任何對案件之評論,均有違法之可能,當然已明顯侵害言論自由與新聞自由。最後,法務部雖引德國法之例,卻自承德國法之規定係在避免「非專業之參審法官或證人」受到影響,然首先,我國目前並無「非專業之參審法官(當然也可能是法務部認為現在法官不夠專業)」。次則? A證人本應依其所知之事實陳述,而非陳述其主觀情感,至於其供述與事實是否相符可透過交互詰問加以澄清,則此一極不明確之規定,已違反憲法比例原則、罪刑法定之法明確原則,更違反刑法之謙抑性。

草案第一七二之四條對司法大不敬罪(對於審判時或偵查時,為不當之言詞動作,或違反法官、檢察官之命令或指揮、或妨害司法程序之進行者科處刑責。)試問,當檢察官要求被告「說實話」被告卻保持緘默,算不算「違反檢察官之命令」?

總之,錯誤立法於先,矛盾辯白於後,已足見此草案之荒謬,且法務部網站上將該聲明置於「全力反貪腐 用心保人權─反貪倡廉郵票發行暨兩公約施行法施行聯合典禮」和「法務部對於『兩公約施行監督聯盟』之三點建議,兩項呼籲,特予回應」中間,三者對照不禁令人懷疑,是網站故障錯發聲明,還是法務部真的如此魯莽草率。 

作者為民間司改會工作委員、律師

*****************************************************

簽了兩公約照樣殺人

林峰正   2009年12月10日蘋果日報

在12月10日世界人權日的前夕,眾多民間團體的代表齊聚在台灣高等法院門口,鵠候纏訟已第15年的徐自強案更六審的判決結果,希望可以爭取一個合乎人權標準的判決。

法庭內傳來徐自強再度被判死刑的消息,在場的徐自強本人、家屬、律師幾乎不能置信,這個被監察院指為判決違誤、檢察總長提起非常上訴五次,還勞煩大法官作成第五八二號解釋的案件,上沖下洗,仍然維持原判,司法沒有認錯,徐自強有如籠中鳥,繼續悲鳴不已。

目睹哭倒在高等法院台階上的徐母,除了不捨,還有什麼辦法?司改會自2000年開始接到徐自強家屬的投訴,發現判決死刑的基礎竟只是所謂共同被告黃春棋及陳憶隆前後矛盾的說詞,陳憶隆還曾親自打電話給徐母說徐自強是冤枉的,也曾經寫信給檢察總長,承認咬住徐自強也一同犯案,只是為了拖延訴訟,冀免一死。人命關天,大法官作成第五八二號解釋,讓徐自強有和黃、陳兩人對質詰問的機會,可是高等法院卻不願給徐一線生機,依然採用胡言亂語的「共同被告」自白,夫復何言!若依大法官的解釋,未經對質詰問的共同被告自白,本不能作為證據,莫非高院法官不甩大法官,否則何以有此結果?

馬總統在3月底親自操盤,促成聯合國的兩個國際人權公約在立法院批准,同時通過了兩公約施行法。法務部因此有了「人權大步走」的計畫,要檢討國內的法令及行政措施,如有不符兩公約規定者,要在兩年內修正。

人權大戲早早休矣

司法院也不落人後,在極短的時間內,以特快車的速度推出「刑事妥速審判法」草案,號稱要依公約的規定,保障人民適時受審的權利,不讓案件無限期稽延,更對外聲稱刑事審判中與人權相關的條款也要一併在兩年內修正。

乍看之下,不論司法院還是法務部,不約而同響應馬總統簽署兩公約的政策。人員訓練、法規檢討、制度條正,樣樣都來。但多數關心國內人權政策的相關團體卻逐漸有一個共同的觀察,那就是以政府相關部門在過去半年內的所作所為觀之,浮淺的公務員人權訓練,不知所為何來的法規檢討,還有學界無人支持,被譏為清理積案殺手鐧的刑事妥速審判法草案,馬總統真要照單全收嗎?難道擁有法學博士頭銜的馬總統可以接受這些臨時拼湊的官方「人權政策」?

簽署兩公約並加以遵守實踐是民間長期的要求,馬總統願意正面回應,理應予以肯定。但人權實踐絕不是花拳繡腿,也不是掛羊頭賣狗肉端出達不到立法目的「疑難案件清理法」(刑事妥速審判法別稱)就可交差。由此次地方首長選舉的結果可知,台灣人民的智慧不可小覷。如果簽署兩公約以後,還是無力阻止死不認錯的法官作出像徐自強案的判決,那又何必多此一舉,這場人權大戲可以早早休矣!

作者為民間司法改革基金會執行長、律師

*******************************************************

Between life and death / 生與死之間
By Celia Llopis-jepsen / STAFF REPORTER / Sunday, Dec 20, 2009, Page 13 / Taipei Times


本報記者 Celia Llopis-jepsen 報導 / 2009年12月20日,星期日,頁13 / Taipei Times
譯者/邱麗玲


Hsu Tzu-chiang has been sentenced to death eight times over the past 14 years in a case human rights lawyers say is a textbook example of what’s wrong with the death penalty system in Taiwan. Celia Llopis-Jepsen spoke with him for 20 minutes at the Taipei Detention Center on Friday

人權律師表示,徐自強在過去的14年裡歷經8次死刑判決,而這個個案正是可以用來檢視台灣死刑制度有什麼問題的經典事例。記者Celia Llopis-Jepsen在週五(2009年12月18日)和徐自強在台北看守所(以下簡稱「北所」)與談20分鐘。

On the street outside Taipei Detention Center are small food stalls selling large dishes of food. Full meals, not snacks. The dishes aren’t for passersby; they’re for inmates. Family and friends can bring a meal to the people they visit.

販售著大份量餐點的攤販林立在北所外的街道;他們賣的是一整份的餐點,而不是小零食。那些餐點不是給來往的過客買來吃的,而是作來給獄所的收容者吃的。人們可以在這邊買一些餐點進去探視他們的親人與朋友。

This detention center, in Tucheng (土城), Taipei County, is now famous for housing former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who has been held here since November last year, but I’m here to see inmate No. 1121, Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強), the defendant in a 14-year-old case who was sentenced to death for the eighth time last week.

坐落在台北縣土城市的北所,目前正因收容著前總統陳水扁而聲名大譟,他從去年的11月就被關押至今。而筆者今天是來探視編號1121的收容人-徐自強。他是一名歷經14年的刑事被告,並在上週被第8度宣判死刑。

Hsu has spent the past 13 years locked up in this facility.

徐自強被關押在此,至今已經耗費了13年的歲月。

Although it’s called a detention center, the facility could also be called a prison. It houses people who are being detained while their trials proceed (such as Hsu and Chen), as well as prisoners whose sentences have been finalized. Taiwan has 20 such detention centers nationwide.

儘管這個地方被稱為「看守所」,但毋寧稱為「監獄」也許會更適合。它囚禁著一些像徐自強及陳水扁這樣還在審理程序中的在押刑事被告,就如同已經被判決定讞的監獄受刑人一樣。像這樣的看守所,在全台灣總共設有20個。

The inmates live two to a cell, less than 2 ping (6.6m²) in size. Hsu has changed cellmates many times over the years — each time one is executed, a new one moves in.

這些收容者住在一個2坪大(約6.6平方公尺)的牢房裡。在過去的這些年裡,徐自強已經換了好幾名室友了──只要有人被執行死刑,就有新的人再搬進來。

Executions are not announced in advance. The prisoner is simply collected from his cell one evening and taken to an execution facility adjacent to the detention center. With a prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office as witness, he or she is laid down on a mattress face down and shot in the heart from the back. Those who want to donate their organs are shot in the back of the neck just below the brain. Immediate family are only informed afterward. Taiwan now has 43 inmates awaiting execution, but under an unofficial moratorium, the country has not executed anyone for four years.

死刑執行並不會預先告知。受刑人只會在前一晚從牢房被帶到一處集合,並在隔天帶到毗鄰北所的刑場。在最高法院檢察署的檢察官見證下,受刑人會躺在面朝下的趴在棉被上,死刑執行者會從他們的背上對著心臟開槍;至於那些想要在死後捐出器官的人,則是會在頸背對著大腦的底部開槍。而受刑人的家屬只會在死刑執行之後才被告知。台灣目前有43名死刑犯在等候執行,但在民間力推暫緩死刑執行之下,台灣已經有4年沒有執行死刑。

Hsu himself was on death row for five years and faced imminent execution during that period. But the sentence wasn’t carried out, and in 2005 his case was reopened after the Council of Grand Justices ruled one aspect of it was unconstitutional — his lawyers were not allowed to cross-examine his codefendants, one of whom later retracted his testimony against Hsu. The case is now at the Supreme Court.

徐自強已經住在死囚牢房五年了。在過去這段期間裡,他也曾多次面臨可能執行死刑的危機。但判決並未被執行,因為在2005年大法官會議針對這個案子作出違憲的解釋──當時他的律師不被允許交互詰問本案的共同被告,其中一名還曾在之後撤回他對徐自強的證言。這個案子目前已經上訴到最高法院。

I accompanied staffers from the Judicial Reform Foundation (司法改革基金會) and the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (廢除死刑推動聯盟) who went to the detention center on Friday to visit him, along with another defendant in an equally controversial death penalty case, Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順).

筆者與司法改革基金會的工作人員在週五(2009年12月18日)前往北所探視徐自強,同行還有廢除死刑推動聯盟的朋友,一起探視另一名被判決死刑且同樣具有爭議的刑事被告──邱和順。

At the reception desk, we present our IDs and apply to see inmates Nos. 1121 and 1152. After receiving two slips of paper authorizing our visit, we walk through a gate into the detention center and hand the slips to a guard, who leads us to another building, where we sit and wait. Ten minutes later, a second guard shows up. He leads us in drizzling rain through another gate to a building where we must lock up our belongings, present our IDs again and be searched with metal detectors. They check our temperatures as a precaution against H1N1 flu. I am not allowed to bring a recorder, or even a pen and paper.

在接待區,我們出示身份證明文件,並申請探視編號1121及1152的收容人。在拿到兩張准許探視的紙條之後,我們走經過圍牆的大門,進入台北看守所,並遞交准許探視的紙條給門口的警衛。他領我們到一旁的休息室,我們在那邊坐著等待。莫約十分鐘之後,第二個警衛前來。在濛濛細雨中,他引領我們走進另一棟建築物的大門,在那裡我們必須把身上的所有物品鎖在寄物櫃裡,再次出示身份證明文件之後,還要接受金屬探測器的檢查。為了預防H1N1新型流感,他們也會幫我們量額溫。筆者被禁止攜帶錄音器材,甚至連紙筆都不可以。

We are then led into a courtyard with basketball courts, through another gate and finally into a third building. The room is divided into two sections, one for visitors and one for prisoners. We sit and wait for Hsu and Chiou. I will speak to Hsu, together with Judicial Reform Foundation staffer Tony Yang (楊宗澧). Two others will speak to Chiou. Yang promises to translate from Taiwanese, which Hsu speaks better than Mandarin.

之後,看守員引領我們走經過一個有著藍球場的天井庭院,經過另一道圍牆的大門之後,我們最後到達第三棟建築物。那間房間分成兩個部份,一邊是來訪的探視者,另一邊則是受刑人。我們坐下並等待徐自強與邱和順的到來。我和司法改革基金會的工作人員楊宗澧一起與徐自強講話,另外兩個人則和邱和順對談。楊宗澧答應幫我翻譯台語,因為徐自強的台語說的比國語好。

Hsu and Chiou are led in by guards. My first impression is of their smiles, which are surprisingly warm and catch me off guard. Both look happy to leave their cell for a 20-minute visit, happy to be in each other’s company for a few moments, happy to have visitors and some human contact, even if they’ve never met us before.

徐自強及邱和順被看守員帶進來。我第一印象是來自他們出乎我意料之外的溫暖笑容,我沒想到會這樣!他們兩個人看起來都很開心,開心著離開牢房來這裡接受20分鐘的探視,開心著與彼此有短暫幾分鐘的相處,開心著有訪客以及能與一般人的互動;儘管我們彼此未曾相識。

Just last week I watched Hsu’s mother break down at the High Court in Taipei after her son was found guilty again. Hsu’s lawyers say there is no evidence against him and that he was sentenced based solely on the testimony of others.

就在上星期,徐自強再度被判決有罪之後,我在台北高等法院看到他的媽媽崩潰痛哭。徐自強的律師說沒有任何證據指向他,但他依舊只因其他共同被告的證詞而被作出有罪判決。

Hsu seems glad to chat a little. He sits separated from us by two layers of glass with metal bars sandwiched between them. The three of us — Hsu, Yang and I — talk by speaking into telephone receivers.

徐自強高興的與我們談話。他坐在我們對面,中間有兩層玻璃及金屬條隔著。我們三人──徐自強、楊宗澧及我──靠用電話筒對話。

He tells us “A-bian” (阿扁, the former president) is in his detention block. He sees him sometimes at exercise time. Hsu is allowed to stroll or exercise in the courtyard for 20 or 30 minutes a day, unless it’s raining, which, given Taipei’s climate, happens all too often.

他告訴我們阿扁(陳前總統)跟他住在同一棟。他在幾次的運動時間看過阿扁。徐自強每天可以在天井的放封區散步或運動20或至30分鐘,除了下雨天之外;但台北的天氣卻常常這樣。

Yang lets Hsu know that a reporter from Al-Jazeera is interested in his case and might come to interview him: Please don’t turn him down. Hsu nods. The Judicial Reform Foundation and other groups have been trying for years to draw attention to Hsu’s case and others like it.

楊宗澧讓徐自強知道半島電台對他的案子有興趣,而且有可能會來訪問他,請他別拒絕。徐自強點頭答應了。司法改革基金會及許多團體為了提升徐自強及其他類似案件的能見度,已經作了許多年的努力及嘗試。

I ask Hsu about his daily life. He likes to read, he said — especially novels. Anything to pass the time. There’s a library in the prison, but usually he reads what his family brings him. Relatives are also allowed to bring their loved ones clothes and, perhaps best of all, food. Asked about the quality of the food in the detention center, Hsu says: “Well, we get to eat our fill.”

我詢問徐自強一些關於他的日常生活細節。他說他喜歡閱讀,尤其是小說。任何東西都可以殺時間。獄所裡面有圖書館,但是他讀的書通常都是他家屬帶來給他的。親屬也可以帶來他們的摯愛所穿衣物,以及另一些也許是世上最好的東西--食物。被問到看守所內的飲食品質,徐自強回答:「呃,我們只求能吃飽就好了!」

Hsu’s relatives see him when they can, but visits can last only 20 minutes. His son is at university in Kaohsiung and can’t come so often, but his mother stops by regularly. Today the NGO staffers have called her in advance to make sure they don’t visit on the same day, as Hsu is allowed just one visit per day.

徐自強的親屬會在他們可以的時候來探視他,但是訪視只能有20分鐘。他的兒子在高雄讀大學,所以無法常常去看他,但他的媽媽會定期去探視他。今天NGO工作者已經有先打電話給徐自強的媽媽,以確保我們不會在同一天前來探視,因為徐自強一天只能接受一次的訪客。

Hsu also has a small TV in his cell that his family gave him. He saw the news about himself last week, he tells us. He watched his mother crying uncontrollably, collapsed on the ground outside the courthouse after the judgment, surrounded by gawking photographers.

徐自強也有一部小電視在他的房間裡,那是他的家人帶給他的。他跟我們說,他上週有看到一些關於自己的新聞。他看到他媽媽在判決之後無法抑止的大聲痛哭,並崩潰跌坐在法院外的地板上,週遭還圍著許多獵取畫面的記者。

“I thought this time the judgment would be different,” he says quietly.

「我以為這次的判決會不一樣。」他平靜的說著。

The disappointment is painful, he says, but seeing his mother collapsed outside the courthouse crying for him was worse.

「所以當下的失望是會心痛沒錯…」他說;但看到他媽媽崩潰跌坐在法院外的地板上時,卻是更加的難受!

“I’m not afraid anymore that they’re going to execute me. I hurt more for my mother,” he says.

「對於即將逼近的死刑執行,我一點都不畏懼!但我只是更加傷了我媽媽的心!」他說著。

Suddenly a voice recording breaks into our conversation: “Your visiting time is almost up.”

突然之間,有個錄音廣播插入我們的對話:「您的訪視時間即將結束。」

We sit awkwardly for a moment as it repeats, wondering what else to say in the time we have left.

在錄音廣播不斷重複的同時,我們坐著尷尬對望,思忖著在剩餘的時間裡,我們還能再聊些什麼。

I ask Hsu if this is what it’s like when he meets with his lawyers, too.

我詢問徐自強,當他跟律師見面的時候,是否也是這樣?

“No, my lawyers get to meet me in the same room. Sometimes they need my signature for things,” he says.

「不是。律見的時候,我的律師可以跟我在同一個房間裡見面。有時候他們會需要我在一些文件上簽名。」他說著。

But his mother and son are not as lucky. For them, Hsu is as distant as he is for us: a voice over a phone receiver, behind bars and glass, beyond reach of their embrace.

但他的媽媽跟兒子卻沒有如此幸運。對他們來說,徐自強與他們之間的距離就如同他與我們之間的距離一樣遙遠:只有一個透過話筒傳來的聲音,在層層柵欄與玻璃之後,在那個彼此的擁抱所無法可及之處。

The voice recording cuts in again: “Your visiting time is up.”

「時間已到。」錄音廣播再度中斷我們的談話。

The phone cuts off and the guards come back into the room.

電話線路中斷,看守員也再度走進那個房間。

Hsu gives a small wave of goodbye as he and Chiou are led back to their cells.

就在他及邱和順要被帶走的同時,徐自強對我們小小地揮手致別…。

********************************************************

~~ 法官從未曾以應有之「無知之幕」的基本精神、更以「心證已成」

之方式違反憲法第二十三條所定之比例原則之下進行..... ~~   


他們是 「證隨心生,輕而易舉」!  

當然 -   違反「正當法律程序」的審判是:「無效裁判」!

打抱不平,  加油 ~~ 加油 ~~ 加油 ~~ !!!


( 時事評論公共議題 )


回應 列印 加入我的文摘
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇

引用
引用網址:https://classic-blog.udn.com/article/trackback.jsp?uid=nufashion&aid=3611436