強制導尿在刑事程序中之適法性探討【本期企劃】 試閱
On the Constitutionality of Compulsory Urinary Catheterization in Criminal Procedure
本文主要在探討強制導尿處分的違憲爭議，首先整理我國、德國與歐洲人權法院的相關見解，再進一步透過比例原則對於刑事訴訟法第205條之的侵入性身體檢查處分進行合憲性解釋，同時以所架構之要件針對強制導尿處分進行檢驗，最後發現不論是從比例原則或是從人性尊嚴不可侵犯的角度來看，國家對被告所發動的強制導尿，應非屬法所容許之強制處分措施。刑事訴訟法第205條之1規定的文義範圍固然可能涵蓋強制導尿的類型，但應對其適用為合憲性限縮，把強制導尿排除於該條適用範圍之外。
The constitutionality of compulsory catheterization procedure would be primarily examined in this paper. It first collates relevant interpretations form Taiwan, Germany and the European court of Human Rights. Subsequently, it employs the principle of proportionality to conduct a legal analysis of invasive physical examinations according to Article 205-1 Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, It applies the established criteria to scrutinize compulsory catheterization procedures. Ultimately, it is concluded that whether viewed through the lens of proportionality or the inviolability of human dignity, the state’s imposition of compulsory catheterization upon defendants should constitute a constitutional impermissible coercive measure. Whilst the scope of Article 205-1 Code of Criminal Procedure may encompass compulsory catheterization, its application should be legally restricted to exclude such procedures from the provision’s purview.
030-045
