| Summary: | 博士 === 中央警察大學 === 犯罪防治研究所 === 102 === The purpose of this dissertation includes four goals: 1.Applying a comparative perspective, this study collects criminal fraud cases which were sentenced in U.K., U.S., and Hong Kong in order to conduct literature analysis for identifying what kinds of “weighted criteria” (e.g., the levels of guilty, seriousness, recidivism, and regret) really matter while judges make his/her sentences; 2. Conducting survey to judges with a self-administered questionnaire method, this study further analyzes what kinds of “weighted criteria” that impacted Taiwanese judges while making his/her final sentences; 3. Collecting District Court Judgments relating to the cases of Article 339 (1) of Criminal Code, the study also identifies what kinds of “weighted criteria” impacted those judge decisions; 4. Taken together, the sentencing theories and “weighted criteria” can be sufficiently examined and clarified. Then, sentencing guidelines can be developed and proposed in final.
Accordingly, the framework of this dissertation includes: chapter one is the introduction. Chapter two introduced the history and backgrounds of penal theories. Then, four sentencing theories, Cybernetic theory, Causal attribution theory, Social contexts or social worlds theory, and Personal construct theory, have been fully introduced and discussed in chapter three. Chapter five emphasizes the comparative perspectives and those legal cases occurring in UK, US, and Hong Kong relating to criminal fraud crimes were cited and discussed to identify the “weighted criteria.” In addition, mitigating and aggravating factors have been introduced. Chapter six presents the results of quantitative analysis from all grades of judges’ questionnaires. Chapter seven presents those Court Judgments collected from 2011 to 2012, including the results and discussions.
Overall, the significant conclusions are presented as follows: 1. Based on the comparative analysis, the study provides some concrete “weighted criteria” as sentencing guidelines for Taiwan judges when sentencing criminal fraud cases; 2. Taiwan Judicial Yuan should establish “Sentencing Commission” to conduct some research in order to set up sentencing guidelines regulating and leading sentencing practices; 3. This study also suggests that interdisciplinary principle (such as social science, law, and information science) should be introduced to build up sentencing guidelines; 4. The sentencing guidelines should be developed from the cases of high degree of consensus; 5. While sentencing guidelines should be developed for each different offense, the first one should be ruled for criminal fraud cases; 6. Taiwan Judicial Yuan should encourage judges to employ sentencing guidelines while in trails; 7. Sentencing guidelines research should be pushed continually.
|
|---|
