反思台灣廢除死刑運動的困境──受害者家屬與民意問題

Abstract

死刑的討論在當今台灣仍有很大爭議。儘管廢除死刑運動者指出，死刑無法解決問題，並從各種角度論述死刑制度的錯謬，但是，在死刑支持者特別重視的「受害者家屬」與「民意」問題上，廢死運動者似乎尚未有更有力的論點。不過，現階段廢除死刑運動者並未將「受害者家屬」或「民意」問題置於死刑議題討論的核心，而多從「法律制度」與「人權」角度討論死刑、確證廢除死刑的合理性。然而這麼一來，雙方僅是各自喊話，而沒有真正對話。 本文以台灣廢死運動的發展為主軸，探討廢死運動在台灣的發展過程，反思面對「受害者家屬」與「民意」爭議時的回應方式與窒礙難行的困境。在「受害者家屬」問題上，透過受害者家屬的切身感受與思考，呈現受害者家屬與死刑之間並非毫無關聯，除了對正義的想像外，也有著各種不同的意義或投射，甚至連帶有對於非當事人／一般大眾的同理心要求。廢死運動者將受害者家屬問題置於保護制度的思考中，難以真正理解受害者家屬問題，且會造成部分受害者家屬認為廢死的理念傷害自身感情、更加排斥廢死運動。而「民意」問題，在一開始並不被廢死運動者重視，廢死運動者多將死刑議題視為「人權」議題，並認為司法應避免多數意見造成的暴力。然而這樣的想像傾向特定的「國際人權」範疇，而較少討論在地如何思考「人權」。廢死運動者所想像的「民主」、「民意」與死刑議題的關係，多傾向藉由司法決以避免多數暴力，但是這與民眾對於民主的想像似乎有所差距，需要進一步討論。

The discussion of death penalty remains a controversial topic in Taiwan nowadays. Although abolitionists have pointed out that death penalty cannot resolve the real issues and stated the faults of death penalty system from various perspectives, they are still unable to provide stronger arguments over the debate on the victim’s family and public opinions, as proposed by proponents of death penalty. At the present stage, abolitionists have not included the victim’s family and public opinions into their core discussion of the death penalty controversy. Rather, they tackle the issue and justify their conclusion from the perspectives of penal system and human rights. However, this only results in reinforcing one’s legitimacy without entering into any real and mutual dialogues.

This article explores the development of “death penalty abolition movement” in Taiwan and evaluates their responses to the victim’s family and public opinions and how it leads to a deadlock predicament. When putting oneself in the shoes of the victim’s family, it becomes apparent that the relationship between them and capital punishment is not entirely irrelevant. To them, other than their desire for justice, capital punishment also has different implications and projections on the general public or a stranger, even to the extent of demanding empathy. Abolitionists place the victim’s family in a protective shield, and thus, are unable to truly comprehend the predicaments they face. Subsequently, it causes more emotional harms on the family and strengthens their resolve to deny the abolition movement. Public opinions were not well recognized by abolitionists at the outset. Instead, they approached the debate from the human rights perspective and considered any justice system must avoid the influence of the majority to prevent violence. However, this ideology leans toward the scope of international human rights and neglects the local context of human rights. According to abolitionists, the relationship between democracy, public opinions and capital punishment has to avoid tyranny through the judicial system. Yet, this does not correspond with the democracy that proponents of death penalty understand. Therefore, this needs further discussion.