減刑規定與罪刑相當原則：從釋字第790號反思重刑化的毒品政策【本期企劃】 試閱
Commutation Clause and Proportionality between Crime and Punishment: Reflection on Severe Drug Policy from J.Y. Interpretation No. 790
司法院釋字第790號解釋宣告毒品危害防制條例第12條第2項栽種大麻罪違憲，理由在於其與罪刑相當原則不符而違反憲法第23條，至於同法第17條第2項自白減刑條款適用範圍未包括第12條第2項，則未違反憲法第7條而合憲。該號解釋對於毒品政策影響重大，本文嘗試以此解釋為中心，說明毒品案件背後以減刑規定為核心的實務思維、罪刑相當原則的運用方向及其限制，並藉此反思重刑化的毒品政策。
J.Y. Interpretation No. 790 declared that Article 12(2) of Narcotics Endangerment Prevention Act unconstitutional because of violation of the Article 23 of the Constitution, the principle of proportionality in proportionality between crime and punishment. However, the confession commutation clause of Article 17(2) does not include Article 12(2), which is not in violation of Article 7 of the Constitution and is constitutional. There is a significant impact on drug policy. This article takes J.Y. Interpretation No. 790 as an example, explaining the practical thinking in commutation clause behind drug cases, the application and limitation of proportionality between crime and punishment, and to reflect the severe drug policy.
017-028
