論兒童最佳利益在對父母或主要照顧者被告量刑中的考慮：兼談憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決之啟示及影響

On the Best Interests of the Child in Sentencing for Parents or Primary Caregivers: The Implications and Influences of Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-8 (2022)

10.6199/NTULJ.202211/SP_51.0004

林慈偉(Tzu-Wei Lin)

父母及主要照顧者 ； 量刑 ； 兒童權利公約 ； 兒童最佳利益 ； 兒童表達意見權 ； 兒童不與父母分離之權利 ； 南非憲法法院S v M案判決 ； 憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決 ； 人性尊嚴 ； 正當法律程序 ； parents and primary caregivers ； sentencing ； Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) ； best interests of the child ； rights of the child to be heard ； rights not to be separated from parents of children ； S v M Judgment (2007) of Constitutional Court of South Africa ； Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-8 (2022) ； human dignity ； due process of law

臺大法學論叢

51卷S期（2022 / 11 / 01）

1023 - 1090

繁體中文

判刑和其他刑事司法決定，往往會對犯罪者之受撫育兒童產生不利，甚至創傷性的影響。而從國際人權規範以及若干國家制度實踐經驗也可看出，刑事領域已逐漸意識到在對父母或主要照顧者被告量刑決定應考慮其撫育兒童最佳利益等要求。自兒童權利公約、部分區域人權條約規範，以及南非憲法法院S v M案判決經驗可知，法院對父母或主要照顧者判刑時，應盡可能施以監禁外替代措施，並考慮不同判決對兒童所產生的衝擊，以確保兒童最佳利益及其表意權利。我國刑事法律對此並無明文規定，又雖自從兒童權利公約內國法化後，我國裁判實務已有若干適用經驗，但從最高法院迄今所作出之裁判例則可發現，其大致上仍未能清楚意識到兒童最佳利益在父母或主要照顧者量刑中考慮之重要性。另一方面，在憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決對兒童權利的正面宣示與保障契機下，本文認為，該號判決所涉兒童最佳利益攸關人格權、人性尊嚴、兒童表達意見權及憲法上正當程序等保障意旨，亦應援用於同樣影響兒童權益之對父母或主要照顧者被告的量刑決定。同時，相關單位也應進行修法，使兒童最佳利益評判在量刑過程具備其獨立之地位及步驟，以確保此類案件兒童權益之實體及程序保障。

Sentencing and other criminal justice decisions often have adverse, even traumatic effects on the offender's dependent children. From the international human rights norms and the practical experience of certain nations, it can also be seen that the criminal judicial discipline has gradually realized that the best interests of children shall be considered in the sentencing of their parents or primary caregivers. From the Convention on the Rights of Child, the norms of regional human rights treaties, and the precedent of the South African Constitutional Court in the S v M case, it is manifested that the court shall consider alternative measures to imprisonment, and consider the impact of respective sentences on children in its judicial proceedings, to ensure the rights to best interest and the rights to expression of children. While Taiwan lacks legal provision on such notions and the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child had inspired some practical applications of this norm; from the precedents of the Supreme Court, it can be found that it had failed to implement this norm and consider the best interests of the child in the sentencing of parents or primary caregivers. On the other hand, while Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-8 (2022) promulgated a positive declaration on the protection of children's rights, this article holds that the intent of the judgement, namely the constitutional due process protection of rights to personality, dignity, and expression of children, shall also be implemented to the sentencing of parents or primary caregivers, which nevertheless affects children's rights. At the same time, relevant authorities shall also amend laws to guarantee the independent relevance and process of children's rights was implemented in the sentencing process, and to ensure the substantial and procedural protection of children's rights was executed.

1. 王正嘉(2016)。論死刑之裁量與界限：以兩公約與比較法為出發。臺大法學論叢，45(2)，687-754。
   連結：
2. 許恒達(2017)。國際法規範與刑事立法：兼評近期刑事法修訂動向。臺大法學論叢，46(特刊)，1257-1330。
   連結：
3. 廖福特(2014)。「公民與政治權利國際公約」國內法化之影響：最高法院死刑相關判決之檢視。臺大法學論叢，43(特刊)，911-956。
   連結：
4. 廖福特(2021)。普世接受的人權條約，兒童階段的個案救濟：兒童權利公約個人申訴案件之分析。東海大學法學研究，62，1-54。
   連結：
5. 謝煜偉(2018)。論「教化可能性」在死刑量刑判斷上的意義與定位：從最高法院 102 年度台上字第 170 號判決到 105 年度台上字第 984 號判決之演變。臺北大學法學論叢，105，133-186。
   連結：
6. Bush, E. L.(1990).Not Ordinarily Relevant? Considering the Defendants’ Children at Sentencing.Federal Probation,54(1),15-22.
7. Cullen, D. (2016, June 9). Forgotten Victims: Children of Parents Sentenced to Death or Executed, Oxford Human Rights Hub. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/forgotten-victims-children-of-parents-sentenced-to-death-or-executed/
8. Donson, F.,Parkes, A.(2016).Weighing in the Balance: Reflections on the Sentencing Process from a Children’s Rights Perspective.Probation Journal,63(3),331-346.
9. Epstein, R.(2013).Sentencing Mothers: The Rights of the Child and the Duties of the Criminal Courts.Contemporary Social Science,8(2),130-140.
10. Flynn, C.,Naylor, B.,Arias, P.(2016).Responding to the Needs of Children of Parents Arrested in Victoria, Australia: The Role of the Adult Criminal Justice System.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,49(3),351-369.
11. Hagan, J.,Dinovitzer, R.(1999).Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children, Communities, and Prisoners.Crime and Justice: Review of Research,26,121-162.
12. Halton, L., & Townhead, L. (2020, March). Children of Incarcerated Parents: International Standards and Guidelines, Quaker United Nations Office. https://quno.org/resource/2020/3/children-incarcerated-parents-international-standards-and-guidelines
13. Jacobsen, A. F.(2016).Children’s Rights in the European Court of Human Rights: An Emerging Power Structure.The International Journal of Children's Rights,24(3),548-574.
14. Kearney, H.(2013).Children of Parents Sentenced to Death.Capital Punishment: New Perspectives
15. Lauwereys, H.(2020).Sentencing Primary Caregivers in South Africa: The Role of the Child’s Best Interests.South African Journal on Human Rights,36(2-3),154-177.
16. Lerer, T.(2013).Sentencing the Family: Recognizing the Needs of Dependent Children in the Administration of the Criminal Justice System.Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy,9(1),24-57.
17. Millar, H.,Dandurand, Y.(2017).,International Centre for Criminal Law Reform & Criminal Justice Policy.
18. Millar, H.,Dandurand, Y.(2018).The Best Interests of the Child and the Sentencing of Offenders with Parental Responsibilities.Criminal Law Forum,29(2),227-277.
19. Minson, S.(2020).Maternal Sentencing and the Rights of the Child.Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Moyo, A.(2013).Balancing the Best Interests of the Child and the Interests of Society When Sentencing Youth Offenders and Primary Caregivers in South Africa.South African Journal on Human Rights,29(2),314-350.
21. Nowak, M.(2019).,Global Campus of Human Rights.
22. Quaker United Nations Office (2016, May). Forgotten Victims: Children of Parents Sentenced to Death, Quaker United Nations Office. https://quno.org/resource/2016/5/forgotten-victims
23. Roberts, J. V.,Watson, G.(2017).Reducing Female Admissions to Custody: Exploring the Options at Sentencing.Criminology & Criminal Justice,17(5),546-567.
24. Sachs, Albie,陳毓奇（譯）,陳禮工（譯）(2013).斷臂上的花朵：從囚徒到大法官,用一生開創全球憲法典範.麥田.
25. Skelton, A.(2008).Severing the Umbilical Cord: A Subtle Jurisprudential Shift Regarding Children and Their Primary Caregivers.Constitutional Court Review,1(1),1351-368.
26. Terblanche, S. S.(2016).A Guide to Sentencing in South Africa.LexisNexis.
27. Tobin, J.(2009).Judging the Judges: Are They Adopting the Rights Approach in Matters Involving Children?.Melbourne University Law Review,33(2),579-625.
28. Uganda Legal Information Institute. (2013, October 1). Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Uganda Legal Information Institute. https://old.ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2013/article-133-1-b
29. 林沛君(2022)。「家庭權」制度性保障初探：兒童權利實踐之再思考。理論、制度與行動：社會安全制度與社會法之先行者與推手－郭明政教授榮退祝賀論文集
30. 林沛君(2015)。由聯合國兒童權利委員會第 14 號一般性意見重新檢視「子女最佳利益」。華岡法粹，58，127-159。
31. 林慈偉(2022).死刑的盡頭：人權公約下的死刑案件判決樣貌與刑事法變遷.臺灣廢除死刑推動聯盟.
32. 高玉泉,蔡沛倫(2016).兒童權利公約逐條要義.衛生福利部社會及家庭署.
33. 張子午（01/13/2021），〈在罪與罰背後架起對話橋梁：洪當興家暴殺人案中，孩子的聲音與人性面貌〉，《報導者》， 載於：https://www.twreporter.org/a/domestic-violence-best-interests-of-the-childcase。
34. 張淵森（06/01/2022），〈憲法訴訟法來襲（七）：台義跨國爭女案宣判出爐，相似案件怎麼辦？〉，《聯合報》， 載於：https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/120701/6355444
35. 許育典(2022)。裁判憲法審查作為基本權客觀價值秩序的實踐：以子女最佳利益為核心的 111 年憲判字第 8 號判決。月旦法學雜誌，327，41-50。
36. 陳榮傳(2022)。當憲法遇到國際私法：憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決評析。月旦法學雜誌，327，6-40。
37. 陽昇法律事務所（06/06/2022），〈大法官解釋憲法的新篇章：111 年憲判字第 8 號〉，載於：https://sunrisetaipei.com/20220607-2/。
38. 楊子慧(2022)。一敲門，憲法法庭就開？：從 111 年憲判字第 8 號判決觀察裁判憲法審查的受理程序。月旦裁判時報，124，12-27。
39. 劉明生(2022)。親子非訟事件程序之研究：以未成年子女最佳利益之保護為核心。月旦法學雜誌，327，51-78。
40. 蔡華凱(2022)。跨國爭奪子女家事事件之臺義爭女案：臺北地方法院 108年度家暫字第 46 號裁定。月旦法學教室，237，34-40。
41. 鄧學仁(2022)。評台義跨國爭女案：111 年憲判字第 8 號判決。當代法律，7，174-180。
42. 謝煜偉(2020)。從量刑目的論形構量刑框架及量刑理由之判決架構。法官協會雜誌，22，86-104。
43. 謝煜偉(2021)。少年事件中的正當法律程序與被害人參與：評司法院釋字 805 號解釋。台灣法律人，6，133-149。
44. 蘇永欽（06/12/2022），〈名家縱論／救贖還是亂入？〉，《聯合報》，載於：https://udn.com/news/story/7339/6381614