大法官解釋 釋字第791號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期：2020/05/29 |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 1、刑法第239條規定是否符合憲法第22條保障性自主權之意旨？本院釋字第554號解釋應否變更？ 2、刑事訴訟法第239條但書規定是否符合憲法第7條保障平等權之意旨？ |
| [28] 美國麻薩諸塞州最高法院（Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts）在Commonwealth v. Judith Stowell一案中，認為：美國聯邦最高法院判決清晰地指出，僅有可以視為基本權利或聯邦憲法增修條文第5條或第14條所隱含之自由權，個人隱私權方包含在內而受保障。無論隱私權之精確定義及其所保障性行為之範圍如何，均無基本之個人隱私權隱含在自由權之概念中，而足以禁止追訴成年人間合意之私下通相姦行為，因此該刑事制裁通相姦行為之法律本身，並不違憲。該規定於適用於本案時，亦不違憲，因州基於其規制之權限，對於婚姻制度加以規範，毫無疑問並不侵害基本權，麻薩諸塞州廣泛行使其規定之權限，對於婚姻關係在許多方面加以規範，該州既對於婚姻制度廣泛關注，則該州對於可能危害婚姻制度之行為予以禁止，即具有合法之利益，如同美國聯邦最高法院於Southern Sur. Co. v. Oklahoma一案中曾經說過：「通相姦行為乃危害婚姻關係之犯罪行為，屬於各州可以以自己之方式規範之範疇。」麻薩諸塞州法律，除以刑罰禁止通相姦行為外，並以之作為離婚之事由，通相姦行為經常破壞婚姻關係，亦為許多離婚事件之因素。我們不是不知悉反對通相姦行為之公共政策，最常於離婚之訴訟程序中呈現，很少作為刑事追訴之對象。但如同上訴法院所指出，此種現象不能視為以刑罰制裁通相姦行為之法律已經失效或司法機關不能執行，故未起訴其他犯通相姦罪者，於本案中並不是法律問題，該制裁通相姦行為之刑事法律仍屬容許呈現之公共政策。倘因未追訴通相姦犯罪顯示一般民眾不喜歡該法律，適當表達此種民意之權限在立法機關，因該規定並未違憲，法院無權宣告其無效。（“the Supreme Court decisions” make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 152, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.” Roe v. Wade, supra 410 U.S. at 152, 93 S.Ct. at 726. Whatever the precise definition of the right of privacy and the scope of its protection of private sexual conduct, there is no fundamental personal privacy right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty barring the prosecution of consenting adults committing adultery in private. Accord Suddarth v. Slane, 539 F.Supp. 612, 613 (W.D.Va.1982); Johnson v. San Jacinto Junior College, 498 F.Supp. 555 (S.D.Tex.1980); Wilson v. Swing, 463 F.Supp. 555 (M.D.N.C.1978); Hollenbaugh v. Carnegie Free Library, 436 F.Supp. 1328 (W.D.Pa.1977), aff’d, 578 F.2d 1374, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1052, 99 S.Ct. 734, 58 L.Ed.2d 713 (1978). Therefore, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face…. Nor is the statute unconstitutional as applied to the defendant’s conduct. The right of the State to regulate the institution of marriage under its police power is unquestioned where it does not infringe on fundamental rights. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 396, 98 S.Ct. 673, 686, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring).…The Commonwealth has extensively exercised this power to regulate numerous aspects of the marriage relationship. See generally G.L. c. 207. Given this broad concern with the institution of marriage, the State has a legitimate interest in prohibiting conduct which may threaten that institution. See Green v. Richmond, 369 Mass. 47, 51, 337 N.E.2d 691 (1975) (“Massachusetts has a strong public interest in ensuring that its rules governing marriage are not subverted”); French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546, 195 N.E.2d 714 (1935) (“The Commonwealth has a deep interest that [marital] integrity is not jeopardized”). As the Supreme Court has stated: “Adultery is an offense against the marriage relation and belongs to the class of subjects which each State controls in its own way.” |
| < 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 > |
填單諮詢