完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | 蔡蕙芳 | |
| dc.contributor.other | Hui-Fang Tsai | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-08-25T06:50:34Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-08-25T06:50:34Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2012/09/19 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1682-587N | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dspace.fcu.edu.tw/handle/2376/2345 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 傳統以來刑法的焦點都在個別的犯罪人，組織體罪責理論便引起許多爭議。儘管美國刑法最初的立場是拒絕讓組織體負擔刑法上的罪責，但美國法院自一九零九年之後，便逐步的使用刑法作為控制組織體的一種手段。相對照之下，歐陸法系下的刑法在「法人不能為犯罪行為」原則下，向來的觀點都是強調刑法負載有道德上的功能，因此，組織體不能接受刑事制裁。我國刑法學界似乎較少從美國刑法導入，而對組織體罪責等相關課題進行討論與理論建構。在美國刑法理論_x000D_ 架構下探討組織體犯罪與其罪責便是本文研究的主要計畫與動機。_x000D_ 本論文首先介紹美國刑法組織體罪責理論發展的歷史。雖然無法詳盡討論與涵括所有的問題，但至少已經呈現出美國法上相關文獻內所提出的重要關鍵點。本文的第二部分則是針對從美國法上歸納出的幾種組織體歸責模式進行評論性的分析。基於第二部分的研究，本文在第三部份的討論中試圖進一步建構組織體罪責理論。在最後結論中則建議我國刑法應區別個人罪責與組織體罪責，而在未來的刑法修正中採用罪責雙軌制的設計。 | |
| dc.description.sponsorship | 逢甲大學 | |
| dc.format.extent | 32 | |
| dc.language.iso | 中文 | |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | 逢甲人文社會學報 | |
| dc.relation.isversionof | 第一期 | |
| dc.subject | 組織體犯罪 | |
| dc.subject | 組織體罪責 | |
| dc.subject.other | organizational crime | |
| dc.subject.other | organizational culpability | |
| dc.title | 組織體犯罪與組織體罪責 －美國刑法上組織體罪責理論的介紹與評析 | |
| dc.title.alternative | Organizational Crime and Organizational Culpability：A Review of Organizational Theory in American Criminal Law | |
| dc.type | 期刊篇目 | |
| dc.description.translationabstract | Since the criminal law’s traditional focus had been on individual offenders, the notion of organizational culpability has gendered great debates. Although American criminal law initially rejected the idea that an organization could be criminally responsible, American courts have increasingly resorted to the criminal law as an_x000D_ organization control device since 1909. In contrast, on the European continent, under the doctrine of “societas delinquere non potest”, organizations are still not subject to criminal punishment because the moralistic goals of the criminal law are better appreciated than they are in America. Notwithstanding that Taiwan academics_x000D_ have attempted to challenge the topic, very few discussions are based upon the consideration of American criminal law. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this Article is to provide a discussion within the framework of American criminal law._x000D_ First, this Article is devoted to the introduction of the historical development of organizational culpability in America. Although the discussion in this Article will not be exhaustive, it will suffice to expose some critical problems raised in the American law and literature of organizational culpability. Next, this Article attempts_x000D_ to analyze different models of organizational culpability abstracted from American criminal law and construct the theoretical basis for organizational culpability. The observation leads to the conclusion that our criminal law should distinguish individual culpability from organizational culpability. Organizations may be prosecuted alone, their members may be prosecuted individually, or both may be prosecuted together._x000D_ Consequently, in conclusion, this Article proposes that our criminal law adopt a dual culpability system and addresses the need for a new penal reform. | |
| 分類: | 第01期 | |
在 DSpace 系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。