北部三所大學性別平等事件之對質權研究－以99學年度至107學年度為例
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021-09-??
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系
Department of Civil Education and Leadership, NTNU
Department of Civil Education and Leadership, NTNU
Abstract
本研究旨在探究高等教育機構調查處理校園性別平事等件時，行使對質權之情形並分析其内涵。刑事被告享有對於不利證人的對質權係為確保在訴訟上的公平審判，為世界各國及我國司法院大法官解釋所採，而屬於憲法層次的基本權利。然而，目前規範校園性別平等事件對質權之《校園性侵害性騷擾或性霸凌防治準則》、《性別平等教育法》及相關法規，原則上禁止雙方當事人於權力不對等情況下的行為人主張對質權，與刑事訴訟程序有所不同。為此，本文首先探究校園性別平等事件的特殊性質，與一般刑事案件不同之處，何以在立法上有區別對待。再者，本研究探討目前高等教育的校園性別平等事件調查處理程序避免對質的原因，並進一步評析其優缺點，並對於校園性別平等事件的對質權提出相關建議。
The purpose of this study is to examine the principles and exceptions of the right of confrontation in higher education. The right to confront a hostile witness is essential to a defendant in a criminal procedure, and is also an indispensible element to guarantee a fair trial in judicial proceeding. Also, the honorable justices have applied the right of confrontation to our legal system through J. Y. (Judicial Yuan) Interpretations. However, according the Regulations on the Prevention of Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Bullying on Campus and the related principles, it is inevitable to restrict confrontation of the offender in the investigation procedures. The study then explores the reasons for avoiding confrontation in gender equality cases, and goes on to comment on its merits and defects.
The purpose of this study is to examine the principles and exceptions of the right of confrontation in higher education. The right to confront a hostile witness is essential to a defendant in a criminal procedure, and is also an indispensible element to guarantee a fair trial in judicial proceeding. Also, the honorable justices have applied the right of confrontation to our legal system through J. Y. (Judicial Yuan) Interpretations. However, according the Regulations on the Prevention of Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Bullying on Campus and the related principles, it is inevitable to restrict confrontation of the offender in the investigation procedures. The study then explores the reasons for avoiding confrontation in gender equality cases, and goes on to comment on its merits and defects.