當虐殺數十隻倉鼠之後，仍能正常畢業、升學：真正該追問的，不只是成大能不能拒絕他
After Dozens of Hamsters Were Allegedly Killed: The Real Question Is Bigger Than Whether a University Can Deny Admission
今年六月，國立高雄大學一名學生遭室友揭露，涉嫌在校期間長期虐待並造成數十隻倉鼠死亡。
In June 2026, a student at National University of Kaohsiung (NUK) was accused by a roommate of repeatedly abusing hamsters over an extended period, allegedly resulting in the deaths of dozens of animals.
公開資訊所描述的行為，包括火燒、以尖銳物刺入、猛烈甩動及其他方式傷害倉鼠。若相關指控經調查證實，這已經不是一次性的情緒失控，而是一連串具有持續性、反覆性與高度暴力特徵的行為。
Public accounts described methods including burning, piercing with sharp objects, violent swinging, and other forms of physical abuse. If substantiated through investigation, such conduct would go far beyond a single impulsive act. It would represent a repeated and sustained pattern of severe violence against vulnerable animals.
高雄大學其後證實學生涉及虐待倉鼠並造成動物死亡，通報高雄市動物保護主管機關並啟動校內獎懲程序。
NUK subsequently confirmed that a student had been involved in the abuse of hamsters resulting in animal deaths. The university reported the matter to the relevant animal-protection authority and initiated its internal disciplinary process.
事件後續再次引發社會爭議：該生在接受校方懲處後取得畢業資格，並傳出錄取其他國立大學研究所。大量民眾因此要求相關學校拒絕其入學。
The controversy continued after the student completed university requirements following disciplinary action and was reported to have secured admission to a graduate program at another national university. This prompted members of the public to demand that the receiving institution deny admission.
然而，這正是法治社會必須非常謹慎的地方。
This is precisely where a society governed by the rule of law must proceed carefully.
如果學生符合招生簡章及法定入學資格，大學原則上不能因為社會憤怒或網路輿論，而臨時創造一個原本不存在的拒絕入學條件。
If an applicant satisfies the legally established admission requirements, a university generally cannot invent a new disqualification criterion simply because public outrage has intensified.
依法行政，不能變成民意審判。
The rule of law cannot be replaced by trial through public opinion.
但問題也不能停在這裡。
Yet the discussion should not end there.
法律可以處理虐待動物，那教育制度處理的是什麼？
Animal-Cruelty Laws Address the Offense — But What Should the Education System Address?
依台灣現行《動物保護法》，故意傷害、虐待動物並造成特定嚴重結果，可能產生行政甚至刑事法律責任。
Under Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act, intentional cruelty or harm resulting in serious injury or death may give rise to administrative sanctions and, depending on the circumstances, criminal liability.
因此，本案首先必須回到證據與正當法律程序。
Accordingly, the case must first be addressed through evidence and due process.
究竟涉及多少動物？
How many animals were actually involved?
死亡與傷害如何發生？
How did the injuries and deaths occur?
相關行為能否建立完整證據鏈？
Can investigators establish a reliable chain of evidence?
行為人的法律責任到什麼程度？
What legal responsibility, if any, should ultimately be imposed?
這些問題應交由主管機關及司法機關調查，而不是由網路直接判決。
These are matters for competent authorities and the justice system—not for social media to adjudicate.
然而，在法律責任之外，還存在另一個重要問題：
Yet beyond legal responsibility lies another critical question:
如果一個人在校園內被發現曾長時間、反覆對弱小生命施加嚴重暴力，大學除了記過、輔導與完成行政程序之外，是否應該啟動專業的風險評估與介入？
If a person is found to have repeatedly inflicted severe violence on vulnerable animals within a university environment, should the institution do more than impose disciplinary sanctions? Should professional risk assessment and intervention also be considered?
這不是要把虐待動物的人直接定義成「未來一定會傷害人」。
This does not mean declaring that a person who abuses animals will inevitably become violent toward humans.
這樣的直接因果推論並不嚴謹，也可能造成污名化。
Such deterministic reasoning is neither scientifically rigorous nor socially responsible.
真正值得注意的是行為本身呈現出的反覆性、持續性、嚴重性與暴力程度。
What warrants attention is the behavioral pattern itself—its repetition, duration, severity, and degree of violence.
當這些特徵同時存在時，教育與公共安全體系是否應該進一步評估其背後可能存在的心理、行為控制、暴力認知或其他風險因素？
When these characteristics coexist, should educational and public-safety systems have mechanisms to assess possible psychological, behavioral, or violence-related risk factors?
這才叫做風險治理。
That is risk governance.
「記大過」處理的是校規，不一定處理了風險
Disciplinary Demerits Address Rule Violations — Not Necessarily Risk
校方懲戒回答的是：
University discipline answers one question:
「學生違反校規之後，學校應給予什麼處分？」
“What sanction should be imposed when a student violates university rules?”
但社會真正需要知道的還包括：
But society also needs another question answered:
「嚴重暴力行為發生之後，有沒有適當的專業評估與介入？」
“After severe violent behavior occurs, has there been appropriate professional assessment and intervention?”
兩者完全不同。
They are fundamentally different questions.
校規懲戒是行政程序。
心理與行為評估是專業介入。
刑事追訴是司法程序。
生命教育則是教育責任。
Disciplinary action is an administrative process.
Psychological and behavioral assessment is a professional intervention.
Criminal prosecution belongs to the justice system.
Life education remains an educational responsibility.
任何一項都無法完全取代其他項目。
None can fully substitute for the others.
如果制度的流程最後只是：
If the institutional process becomes merely:
事件曝光 → 通報 → 懲處 → 畢業 → 下一所學校依法入學
Exposure → Reporting → Discipline → Graduation → Admission to the next institution
那麼我們可能完成了行政程序，卻未必完成了真正的風險治理。
Then the administrative process may have been completed while the underlying risk-governance question remains unresolved.
真正的問題不是「要不要封殺」
The Real Question Is Not Whether Someone Should Be “Blacklisted”
我並不認為所有壓力都應該轉嫁給下一所大學。
The burden should not simply be transferred to the next university.
如果現行招生規範沒有賦予學校拒絕入學的法律依據，要求學校單純因為網路民意取消一名學生的入學資格，同樣可能產生危險的法治先例。
If existing admission regulations provide no lawful basis for exclusion, demanding that a university revoke admission solely because of online outrage could create a troubling precedent.
今天可以因為虐待動物而突破程序，明天是不是任何遭到網路公審的人，都可能被要求取消學籍？
If procedural safeguards can be bypassed today because the allegation involves animal cruelty, could another person tomorrow lose educational rights merely because an online campaign demands it?
法治不能如此運作。
That is not how the rule of law should function.
然而——
However:
「不能任意拒絕入學」不等於「制度什麼都不能做」。
“A university cannot arbitrarily deny admission” does not mean “the system can do nothing.”
真正值得台灣討論的，是大專院校是否需要建立更完整的重大暴力事件風險評估與轉銜機制。
Taiwan should instead consider whether universities need a more comprehensive framework for risk assessment and continuity of support following serious incidents involving violence.
在保障個資、程序正義及學生基本權利的前提下，針對重大暴力、嚴重動物虐待或具有明確安全疑慮的事件，是否能建立適當的專業評估、心理支持、必要介入及跨機構轉銜？
Subject to privacy protections, due process, and students’ fundamental rights, could serious cases involving violence, severe animal cruelty, or identifiable safety concerns trigger appropriate professional assessment, psychological support, intervention, and lawful continuity between institutions?
目的不是懲罰一個人一輩子。
The purpose would not be lifelong punishment.
而是不要讓每一次「畢業」、「轉學」或「升學」，都讓所有問題重新歸零。
It would be to ensure that graduation, transfer, or progression to another institution does not automatically reset every unresolved concern to zero.
動物虐待從來不只是「愛不愛動物」
Animal Cruelty Is Not Merely About Whether Someone Likes Animals
嚴重動物虐待同時涉及生命教育、校園治理、心理健康、暴力預防、司法制度與公共安全。
Severe animal cruelty intersects with life education, campus governance, mental health, violence prevention, the justice system, and public safety.
如果每一次重大事件發生之後，社會最後只剩下兩種答案——
If every serious case ultimately produces only two responses—
一邊要求：
One side demanding:
「封殺他。」
“Blacklist him.”
另一邊回答：
And the other responding:
「依法行政，我們沒有辦法。」
“We must follow the law. There is nothing we can do.”
那麼真正需要改革的制度問題，就會消失在兩個極端之間。
Then the institutional reforms that actually matter disappear between those two extremes.
我們真正需要的是第三條路：
What we need is a third path:
不要讓網路輿論取代司法；
也不要讓「依法行政」成為制度停止思考的終點。
Do not allow online outrage to replace justice.
But do not allow “we followed the rules” to become the point at which institutions stop asking what should be improved.
從旺旺事件回頭看看台灣
From the Wang Wang Case Back to Taiwan
當我們看到海外發生嚴重虐待動物案件時，經常會問：
When severe animal-cruelty cases occur elsewhere, people often ask:
為什麼法律沒有阻止？
Why did the law fail to prevent it?
為什麼沒有人及早介入？
Why did no one intervene earlier?
為什麼嚴重虐待生命之後，制度似乎仍然可以照常運轉？
Why can institutions appear to continue operating normally after severe cruelty has occurred?
但是回到台灣，我們也必須問自己同樣的問題。
Taiwan must be willing to ask itself the same questions.
台灣有《動物保護法》。
Taiwan has an Animal Protection Act.
有警察、有動保主管機關、有大學、有心理專業，也有司法制度。
It has police, animal-protection authorities, universities, mental-health professionals, and a functioning judicial system.
真正需要檢視的是：
The real question is:
這些制度彼此之間，有沒有真正連結起來？
Are these systems actually connected?
一個文明社會的進步，不只是把虐待動物的人「罰得多重」。
The progress of a civilized society cannot be measured solely by how severely it punishes animal cruelty.
更重要的是：
More importantly:
當第一個危險訊號出現時，我們有沒有能力辨識？
When the first warning sign appears, can we recognize it?
當嚴重事件發生後，我們有沒有能力介入？
When a serious incident occurs, can we intervene effectively?
當一個人離開原本的環境、進入下一個制度時，我們有沒有辦法在保障權利的同時，不讓所有問題重新歸零？
And when someone moves from one institution to another, can we protect individual rights while ensuring that serious unresolved concerns do not simply disappear?
倉鼠很小。
A hamster is small.
但生命的重量，不應該因為牠只有幾十公克，就變得微不足道。
But the value of a life should not become insignificant simply because that life weighs only a few dozen grams.
一個社會如何面對最弱小生命所遭受的暴力，往往正是檢驗這個社會生命教育、法治與制度成熟度最直接的一面鏡子。
How a society responds to violence against its most vulnerable lives is one of the clearest reflections of the maturity of its education, rule of law, and institutions.
