English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 51483/86598 (59%)
Visitors : 8244434      Online Users : 111
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU 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://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/101607


    Title: 我國緩起訴處分金與民主控制之研究
    Other Titles: A study on the democratic control of the deferred prosecution system
    Authors: 楊詔凱;Yang, Zhao-Kai
    Contributors: 淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班
    陳銘祥;Chen, Ming-Siang;羅承宗;Lo, Cheng-Chung
    Keywords: 財政民主主義;財政議會主義;政府預算;緩起訴處分金;檢察官;Principle of Democratic Governance of Finance;Parliamentary Control of Finance;Governmental Budget;Subscribed Fine of Deferred Prosecution;prosecutor
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2015-05-01 16:11:58 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 國家係以永續存在、發展為其主要目的,且一切行為均須財源的支應。於現今政府財政規模之擴大,國家扮演的角色日益加重,故對於財政收入、管理、營運與支出作用上即須有法律之基礎,因此預算便因應而生。政府於每年度所提出的預算,乃未來重要活動的安排,故須透過以直接選舉產生的代議民主機制為代表所組成的議會,對於整體國政進行決定、管理以及監督,以合乎「財政民主主義」此一憲法原則。
    然而近年來各種財政收入手段日益增加,國家之財源亦日趨複雜化、多樣化,但在諸多財政收支作用中,除租稅作用外,其他部分仍欠缺法學之研究,如本文所欲探究之緩起訴處分制度中緩起訴處分金撥付方式即為一例。
    經由本文整理自2002年2月8日增訂緩起訴處分制度以來,現行緩起訴處分金之運用現況,以及蒐集相關資料發現,此一制度於運作上,容有諸多弊端,故在此欲提出建議之改革方案,以求合乎「財政民主主義」之精神外,亦符設置緩起訴制度之良法美意。
    筆者於本文所提出建議之方案有二:最佳方案為全面上繳國庫。有關改正我國撥付緩起訴處分金制度中,最佳方案乃係流向應歸於統一,即全面上繳國庫,透過代表民意之議會經審核程序後始得撥派之,以確保其流用之正當性。而次佳方案即為強化緩起訴處分金與民意之結合。緩起訴處分金之歸屬,應全面回歸上繳國庫此統一之途徑,透過議會經審議之程序後始得動支乃屬當然。惟若為追求兼具刑事訴訟制度上之特別預防等目的,次佳方案似可創設一具民意之監督機制加以運用。亦即透過各地方政府、議會等具民意基礎之機構,推薦幾名專家學者組成緩起訴處分金查核小組,確保檢察機關在緩起訴處分金撥派、運用上符合目的性、正當性,提升其透明能見度,發揮緩起訴處分金之最大效用並合乎其立法宗旨。
    It is the purpose of a nation to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, all governmental decisions should be supported with sufficient financial resources. The role of the government increases as public expenditure expands. Hence, there is an emergent need for a comprehensive normative structure to regulate governmental financial income, management, operation and expenditure. The budgetary legal system should provide a legal basis for the government’s financial activities and ensure that all governmental income taken from the people is used for the people. In order to comply with the constitutional principle of democratic governance of public finance, all government income and expenditure must be reviewed and approved by a parliament composed of representatives elected directly by the people.
    However, as the means for government to acquire financial income have become more diversified, legal research regarding financial resources other than taxes and levies is lacking. The subscribed fine of deferred prosecutions is one of the financial resources that has not received enough academic attention.
    In February 8, 2002, the deferred prosecution system was amended into the Criminal Prosecution Law in Taiwan. After scrutinizing academic research, communiques of the Legislative Yuan, and reports from relevant agencies, I discovered that there are many deficiencies and malpractices within the operation of the system. I propose some recommendations to make the operation of the system comply with the principle of democratic governance of finance and to fulfill the legislative intent of the deferred prosecution system.
    In this paper I offer two proposals for reforming the subscribed fine of deferred prosecutions system: The best solution is to turn over all fines to the state treasury completely. Therefore, the income can be appropriated through a representative assembly in accordance with budgetary approval procedures, ensuring the legitimacy of its use. The second best solution is to enhance the linkage between the Subscribed Fine of Deferred Prosecution and the General Public’s Oversight. I propose that a supervisory committee be formed as a middle course. Local governments and congress should have the right to recommend experts or scholars to become members of the committee. Through this method, we can enhance the democratic legitimacy of the committee and preserve the functions purported by the legislative intent when enacting the amendment. I believe this method can ensure that prosecutors determine the use of subscribed fines appropriately with democratic legitimacy. This can further enhance the transparency of the system and maximize its utility. The legislative intent of the deferred prosecution system can thus be fulfilled.
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系暨研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML89View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback