美國芝加哥大學教授 Gerald Rosenberg 在其著名的「落空的期望」一
書中，以實證研究的方式，指出美國聯邦最高法院關於種族隔離、墮胎及
女權等看似促成重大社會改革的裁判，只是恰好反映社會變動的趨勢，並
非創造新的趨勢和潮流。我國司法院大法官對於性交易的態度是否亦係如
此？就性交易議題，其究竟是否為「社會改革的推動者」？
本文從實證分析的角度探討釋字第 666 號解釋是否引領社會變遷，文
中並兼採「量化研究」與「質性研究」的研究方法。首先，第「壹」部分
說明何以選擇宣告「罰娼不罰嫖」違憲的釋字第 666 號解釋作為研究的對
象，並指出本文所採取的研究方法及相關名詞定義。第「貳」部分分析釋
字第 666 號解釋，認為該號解釋以「平等權」取代「職業自由」審查系爭
規定之合憲性，策略性迴避爭議，但本號解釋隱含著「娼嫖皆不罰」及「邁
向性交易合法化」的意旨。接著在第「參」、「肆」部分分別探討該號解釋
作成前、後，行政部門、立法部門、社會運動團體、性工作者及一般社會
大眾對於性交易的態度。本文主張，在本號解釋作成前，行政、立法部門
即已朝向「性交易除罰化」邁進，一般社會大眾對於性交易的價值觀亦已
逐漸改變，而此應歸功於為性工作者奮鬥十餘年的社會改革團體「日日春
關懷互助協會」，釋字第 666 號解釋僅係恰巧反應社會的脈動。又因本號
解釋迂迴地以「平等權」審查系爭規定之合憲性，以致解釋作成後社維法
反而修正為性交易專區外娼嫖皆罰的倒退立法，且社會大眾仍不接受「性
交易合法化」，實際上並未促成任何社會變遷。

Professor Gerald Rosenberg at the University of Chicago argued whether
the U.S. Supreme Court could actually promote social change in his famous
book, “The Hollow Hope”. In this book, Professor Rosenberg pointed out that
in Civil rights, abortion and women’s right cases, the Supreme Court were just
part of the social trend, it did not create any new fashion. This amazing
discovery shocks law school students, but is Taiwan’s Constitutional Court the
same? Is Taiwan’s Constitutional Court “a promoter of social reform”?
This article tries to use empirical analysis to discuss whether Judicial
Interpretation No. 666 could lead social change, and it adopts both Quantitative
Research and Qualitative Research methods to find the answer. At First, it
explains why Judicial Interpretation No. 666 declared “Punish sex-workers, but
do not punish whoremasters” provision unconstitutional is in my concern, and
then introduces the method this article adopts. Secondly, it analyzes Judicial
Interpretation No. 666 and finds out the Interpretation implies “sex-workers and
whoremasters all shall not be punished” and “sexual transaction should be
legal”. Then, in part three and four, it discusses the Executives, legislators,
social reform groups, sex-workers, and society’s attitude toward “sexual
transaction” issue before and after the Interpretation was made.
At Last, this article concludes that before Judicial Interpretation No. 666
was made, the Executives were already changing their policy on sexual
transaction, inclined to abolish the punishment of sexual transaction. At the
same time, legislatures proposed a bill to abolish the punishment of sex-workers,
and the value of society was changing. All of these shall attribute the success to
the social reform group, “Collective of Sex Workers and Supporters
(COSWAS)”, Judicial Interpretation No. 666 was only part of the social trend, it
did not really do much thing to it. Besides, it is because Interpretation No. 666
used “right of equality” instead of “freedom of occupation” to review the
constitutionality of related provisions, legislature passed a regulation which
punish both sex-workers and wholemasters outside the sex-trade center, and till
now the public still do not accept the idea that “sexual transaction shall be
legal”. After all, Interpretation No. 666 did not promote any social change at all.