頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 美國最高法院審理死刑合憲性原則:試看Furman, Gregg與Atkins三案之軌跡=The U.S. Supreme Court's Review of the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: The Case of Furman, Gregg, and Atkins |
---|---|
作 者 | 王玉葉; | 書刊名 | 政大法學評論 |
卷 期 | 82 2004.12[民93.12] |
頁 次 | 頁43-90 |
分類號 | 587.215 |
關鍵詞 | 殘酷與不尋常之刑罰; 過度且不必要之刑罰; 演進中的正當行為標準; 延緩死刑執行策略; 雙階程序; 加重或減輕刑罰情節; Cruel and unusual punishments; Excessive and unnecessary penalty; Evolving standards of decency; Moratorium strategy; Bifurcated procedure; Aggravating or mitigating circumstances; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文探討在美國各州尚未全部廢除死刑之前,美國最高法院對死刑存廢政策所能扮演的角色與功能。死刑從美國開國以來即存在,至一九六○年代中葉起為美國民意贊成死刑率最低的年代,最高法院在一九七二年Furman案有史以來首次宣告死刑違憲。它引據美國憲法憲法增修條文第八條「殘酷與不尋常之刑罰」條款及第十四條「法律平等保護」條款,依據當代演進中之正當行為標準來衡量,認為由陪審團裁決之死刑制度漫無標準,武斷恣意,執行結果形成對種族與階級之歧視,是不公平與過度的刑罰。然而四年後在一九七六年Gregg案,法院宣判死刑並非在所有情況下均違憲,只要避免武斷與不公平,對某些謀殺罰判處死刑並非過於嚴厲。此判決使美國在事實上停止執行近十年的死刑又恢復了。此後美國仍有四分之三以上的州繼續維持死刑制度,不過已走向漸漸限制死刑適用,減少死罪罪名,禁止處決某種特殊人犯。在二○○二年Atkins案,最高法院發現美國已有禁止處決智障人犯的全國共識。下一步則為禁止處決十八歲以下少年犯,如果法院在二○○四年相關案件中發現有相同的全國共識,美國才有機會洗刷全世界唯一處決少年犯的污名,而跟得上國際人權標準。 |
英文摘要 | While the death penalty is not yet abolished by federal and state legislatures, this article explores the U.S. Supreme Court's role in monitoring the system of capital punishment not yet abolished by federal and state legislatures. Since the founding of the United States, the Court simply assumed the constitutionality of capital punishment. Until Furman in 1972, under the contemporary evolving standard of decency, the Supreme Court held that the jury-discretionary system of capital punishment as cruel and unusual under the 8th and 14th Amendments of the American Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional. The effect of Furman culminating a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in the U.S. for almost ten years (1968-1976). Four years later, in Gregg, the Court held that the death penalty was not inherently and thus automatically unconstitutional. However, the ruling of the Court emphasized the need to avoid the unfair and arbitrary imposition of capital punishment, and ushered it the beginning of the modern era of capital punishment. In this respect, the Court has kept to a trend of limiting the scope of capital crimes, while rejecting mandatory death penalties and narrowing those eligible to receive the death penalty. Then in 2002 in Atkins the Court, relying on a finding of an established national consensus opposing the death penalty for the mentally retarded, held that under these circumstances, this application of capital punishment cruel and unusual, but left the task of developing ways to define this category to state legislatures. More recently the high court has signed to assess what the teenager convicted of murder at the age of 16 or 17 are eligible for the death penalty. Presumably, if the Court finds a similar national consensus opposing the execution of juveniles, a teenager would be spared the death penalty because of his youth. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。