死刑戰爭：法律人類學的中介

Abstract

公共人類學反映一股人類學知識生產與散布的新方式，以及承認人類學家有責任將他們的知識貢獻給有廣大公共意涵的議題。本文針對「廢除死刑」論爭中法律人類學可以提出什麼樣的新問題，投入這場公共辯論裡，而這個新問題有可能讓論辯各方（包括人類學者）有多一些看待世界的方式。本文指出，目前主張「廢除死刑」的論述裡，太過依賴人權、民主理論作為廢除死刑主要理由的不足。而法律人類學家一直透過田野調查並且比較分析，可以傳遞地方的法律知識來形塑死刑存廢的討論內容，進而在公共的討論中，讓常民和主要來自於西方的法律理念有實質以及有想像的對話。本文認為法律人類學對「廢除死刑」論爭可以提出二個新問題，投入這場公共辯論裡。一個是貼近並掌握文化（對於生死）的信仰體系，另一個是找尋轉化的機制，消解死亡所造成的「債」。透過這個例子筆者結論說明法律人類學家既是中介者，更是提出問題者，最後更希望能夠成功指出公共人類學的幾個可能性。

Public anthropology may be seen as a new way that produces and distributes anthropological knowledge, and it also reflects the acknowledgement among anthropologists that the anthropological knowledge could have contributed more to the issues relevant to the public interests. This article takes the case of the debates over the death penalty and demonstrates the extent legal anthropology may engage in the debates by putting up new questions for different parties involved. I argue that the major theme underlying the abolition of death penalty is one of human rights and democracy, which is Western derived, and this creates difficulty in translating it to the public. Instead, legal anthropology bases its findings on ethnographic investigation and comparison, thereby being able to connect indigenous legal knowledge into the public forum such that the popular and the Western belief may be in a channel of communication to reshape the debates over the death penalty. In this regard, I propose two new questions legal anthropology can do to bring to attention to the public. One is being able to close to the belief systems within culture (especially with regard to life and death). Second, transformation mechanisms could be constituted for substituting the debt generated out of the crime. I conclude that legal anthropology’s engagement may rearticulate the public debate, one of the ways public anthropology can do to the public interests.