臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

自1970年代女權運動興起，將家庭暴力事件視為父權體制下的產物並納入性別平等之改革範疇，家暴議題便從家內走向家外，喚起人們對家庭暴力事件的關注與討論。而修復式司法於近幾年興起，帶來家庭暴力案件適用與否的思考。礙於目前對於家暴案件之相關法律仍未完善，修復式司法提倡者的鼓吹與家庭暴力工作者、女權運動者的反對聲浪交織，極具爭議。

一些提倡者認為，任何案件皆能使用修復式司法，只要當事人自願且程序公平地進行；有些提倡者則持保留態度，認為需有充足的事前準備、長期緩慢且深入的對話、運用可以平衡性別權力的修復促進者、安排兩位修復促進者相互輔助與交流案情、第三方參與對話以監督過程與協助確保安全等等前提之下，家暴案件才適合以修復式司法處理。目前台灣的修復式司法試行方案中已將其運用在家庭暴力案件，本研究目的在於觀察台灣北部地區某地檢署在家庭暴力案件中運用修復式司法之試行方案，探討家暴案件欲進入修復式司法方案之篩案原則及其成效與缺失，始能有所檢討與建議。

研究結果指出，國內將修復式司法運用於家庭暴力案件時，篩案原則可分成主要與次要篩案原則，於初步評估與日後再評估期間使用，篩案時應評估(1)加／被害人狀況、(2)雙方互動、(3)被害人是否了解修復式司法、(4)加／被害人外在因素、(5)案件類型是否適合運用修復式司法、(6)加／被害人意願、(7)加／被害人是否適合參與會議。本研究亦比較修復促進者與檢察官在篩案原則中，涉及加害人或被害人的心理、情緒、認知、意願、危險程度、關係緊張程度、案件類型、社區態度等的篩案原則看法相異之處，結果發現修復促進者與檢察官所著重的面向有差異，呈現出對篩案原則不同的認知與實務見解。

本研究更進一步指出，修復式司法運用於家暴案件時有爭議的篩案原則，多為涉及自身意願、文化與價值觀、是否互為加害人、保護令、對未來的安排、對爭點的處理方式、對修復式司法的認知之因素。因此看似合理的篩案原則中，在實務上仍有其不合文化與情理之處。進而指出法務部頒訂的篩案原則中，需增補其他必要的篩案原則，包括：「當事人雙方皆有意願」、「權控關係」、「當事人非為同居狀態」、「當事人無精神疾病或人格違常疾病」、「未成年的當事人應有專業人士陪同」、「加害人的意願要高過被害人的意願」。

最後，探討篩案原則於實務上的困難，包括加／被害人的陳述與事實落差程度、清楚釐清加／被害人之加害與受害角色、加／被害人能控制自身情緒、雙方關係緊張程度低、加／被害人能一次只專注於談論一個爭議、以篩案原則篩選案件，可能失去彈性的篩案裁量、TIPVDA量表不該是決定個案是否進入修復式司法的依據，應考慮個案的案情差異與符不符合經濟效益等等因素評估之。

綜合研究發現，國內尚未發展一套更完善、具全面性、符合國情文化的篩案原則，僅仰賴評估小組成員們不同的專業背景與實務經驗篩選出合適的案件。研究建議應由法務部綜合參考修復式司法運用於家暴案件的實務人員經驗與意見擬訂出篩案原則，方能在篩選案件時有明確且完整的方向考量個案的各種因素，避免篩案錯誤導致的人身安全問題與資源浪費，明確且完善的篩案原則將能讓更家暴案件的當事人在修復式司法中受益。

Since the 1970 revolution in feminism, women’s rights flourished and struggled to win a larger role in society. Domestic violence is considered as the patriarchal mode of production and needed to be involved in the revolution of gender equality. Domestic violence is not a private issue anymore, even more people are aware of it as a public issue. With the growing interest in restorative justice, we start to question the appropriateness of applying it in domestic violence cases. Restorative justice supporters, women’s shelter operators and women’s right promoters are having different perspectives and critiques toward the use of restorative justice in domestic violence cases. Arguments between them remained years and years.

There are restorative justice promoters agree that restorative justice can be used in any type of cases, if the offender and victim are willing to accept it and the procedure is fair. Others have doubts about it and consider it as reckless. From their point of view, when applying restorative justice in domestic violence cases, it needs sufficient preparation, lengthy dialogue, professional facilitators and a trusted third-party to hold a Victim-Offender Mediation. In Taiwan, restorative justice had begun to apply in domestic violence cases. This research is to find out how a district prosecutors office in Taipei applies restorative justice to domestic violence cases and focuses on screening principles and the practice of screening. This research is also to reveal the achievement and deficiency of the practice of screening and make suggestions.

The research results indicate when applying screening principles to screen cases, those principles should be classified as primary screening principles and secondary screening principles. Screening principles should be applied to the first-time screening and future screening. Screening principles are primarily related to the offender and the victim’s condition, willingness and interaction, whether the victim understands restorative justice, external factors, case type, whether the offender and the victim are suitable to participate restorative justice meetings. This research also compares prosecutors and facilitators’ views toward screening principles. Obviously, prosecutors and facilitators have their unique perspectives and opinions due to their own profession and background. They have different views about the victim and the offender’s psychological conditions, emotion, cognition, willingness, degree of danger, relationship tension, case type, community attitude.

Research result further indicates some controversial screening principles. Most of them relate to the offender and the victim’s willingness, culture and value, mutual offender issue, protection order status, future arrangement, ways to handle their arguments, understanding of restorative justice. Even a reasonable screening principle may not be an appropriate one when applying in domestic violence cases in Taiwan. Therefore, this research points out essential screening principles that needed to be added into the screening principles stipulated by Ministry of Justice, includes “The offender and the victim have strong intention to join restorative justice program.”, “Power and control relationship.”, “The offender and the victim don’t cohabit together.”, “The offender and the victim have no mental disorder or personality disorder.”, “Minor offenders and victims must be accompanied by professionals in restorative justice program.”, “The offender should, when compared to the victim, have stronger intention to join restorative justice program.”

At last, this research discusses about the difficulties when applying these screening principles in domestic violence cases. They are: “The gap between the offender and the victim’s statement and the face.”, “It is able to clarify who is the offender and the victim.”, “The offender and the victim are able to control their emotion.”, “The tension between the offender and the victim is low.”, “The offender and the victim are able to discuss about one point of their arguments.”, “Using screening principles to screen cases could be inflexible.”, “Taiwan Intimate Partner Violence Danger Assessment, TIPVDA should not be the only basis to screen cases, one should also consider the uniqueness of one case and its economic value.”

Research result confirms that developing a set of complete and localized screening principles are crucial. If not, we can only depend on evaluation team members’ professional and experience to screen cases. It is not ideal to effectively screen out inappropriate cases. This research suggests that Ministry of Justice should incorporate operators’ opinions and revise its screening principles in order to improve the screening accuracy, secure the safety of the victim and save time and resource. Interested parties will be benefited from effective screening principles.

目錄
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 3
第三節 名詞解釋 5
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 傳統刑事司法之批判與修復式司法之發展 8
第二節 家庭暴力事件之理論觀點 13
第三節 國內外運用修復式司法於家庭暴力事件實施狀況 16
第四節 修復式司法應用在家暴事件處理的主要論爭 23
第五節 修復式司法用於家暴案件之篩選原則 29
第三章 研究方法 37
第一節 研究流程 37
第二節 研究方法 38
第三節 研究信度、效度與倫理 41
第四章　研究結果與分析 46
第一節　修復式司法運用於家暴案件的目的 46
第二節　修復式司法運用於家暴案件時需考量之篩案原則 49
第三節　修復促進者與檢察官對於合適的篩案原則之比較 59
第四節 有爭議之篩案原則及法務部頒訂的篩案原則之外應再增補之原則 64
第五節 篩案原則於實務上運用之困難 71
第六節　修復式司法運用於家暴案件與篩案原則之綜合討論 76
第五章 研究結論 80
第一節 研究結論 80
第二節　研究討論 90
第六章 研究建議 92
第一節 修復式司法運用於家暴案件與其篩案原則建議 92
第二節 研究限制與未來研究 93
參考文獻 95
附錄一 研究訪談大綱 102
附錄二　訪談同意書 104
附錄三 觀察日誌範例 105
附錄四　台北地方法院檢察署辦理修復式司法試行方案作業流程 107
附錄五　台灣親密關係暴力危險評估表（TIPVDA） 108
附錄六　參加修復式司法試行方案－加害人與被害人對話申請表 109

表目錄
表2-3- 1各國運用修復式司法於家暴刑事案件─傷害、違反保護令、家庭成員間實施身體或精神上不法侵害行為之家暴案件實施狀況： 21
表2-5- 1國內外運用修復式司法於家暴案件之篩選案件原則整理 35
表3-2- 1訪談對象列表 38
表3-3- 1見習時期完成之參與觀察日期與地點列表 43
表3-3- 2修復式司法會議開案評估之參與觀察列表 43
表4-1- 1修復式司法運用於家暴案件的目的 48
表4-2- 1修復式司法運用於家暴案件時需考量之篩案原則－修復促進者之觀點 53
表4-2- 2修復式司法運用於家暴案件時需考量之篩案原則－檢察官之觀點 58
表4-3- 1修復促進者與檢察官在合適的篩案原則中看法異同之列表 63
表4-4- 1修復促進者與檢察官認為有爭議之篩案原則 68
表4-4- 2法務部頒訂的篩案原則之外應再增補之原則 70
表4-5- 1篩案原則於實務上運用之困難 75
表5-1- 1本研究發現主要與次要篩案原則 81
表5-1- 2修復促進者與檢察官在合適的篩案原則中看法異同之列表 84

圖目錄
圖2-5- 1台北地檢署之修復式司法方案流程圖 34
圖3-1- 1研究流程與架構圖 37

　參考文獻
i. 中文部分

吳慈恩、黃志中（2012）。修復式正義應用於家庭暴力事件之初探計畫。台北：
內政部。

林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花（2005）。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析。　　
　　身心障礙研究，3（2），122-136。

高淑清（2008）。質性研究的18堂課─首航初探之旅（修訂二版）。高雄：麗文。

張淑芬（2009）。在我國建立家事調解委員證照制度暨相關評鑑及投訴機制的可
行性。司法研究年報 ，26（3），1-229。台北市：司法院。

許春金（2010）。人本犯罪學─控制理論與修復式正義（修訂二版）。台北：三民。

陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。

陳伶珠、盧佳香（2006）。以法院為基礎的社會工作家事調解歷程之初探。台灣
社會工作學刊，5，75-125。

陳秀峯（2010）。當家事調解遇上修復式司法時─以家庭暴力事件為例。桃園深
耕觀護，3，6-9。　　　

陳祖輝（2003）。本土性的復歸性正義「和解」經驗建構：探索性的文本分析研
究。犯罪學期刊，6（2），251-298。

陳祖輝（2004）。淺談社區司法的理念與實踐：復歸式正義的取向。社區發展季
刊，107，445-458。

彭南元（2010）。法院審理涉及家庭暴力離婚等事件之改革芻議─以紛爭一次解
決為目標之個案研究。司法研究年報 ，27（4），1-92。台北市：司法院。

黃翠紋（2003）。婚姻暴力受虐婦女接受鄉鎮市區調解委員會調解滿意度影響因
素之分析。犯罪學期刊，6（1），67-102。
黃翠紋（2006）。修復式正義理念在婚姻暴力案件調解上的應用。刑事政策與犯
罪研究論文集，9，35-60。

黃翠紋（2007）。涉及暴力之家事事件調解現況及改進方向之研究－以試辦法院
之推動狀況為中心。刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，10，97-138。

黃翠紋（2009）。調解委員調解能力認知與影響因素之研究─以家庭暴力案件調
解為例。刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，12，99-127。

黃蘭媖、許春金、黃翠紋（2011）。修復式正義理念運用於刑事司法制度之探討。
法務部委託研究案。

許春金、黃蘭媖、謝文彥（2011）。以修復會議模式處理家庭暴力及性侵害案件
行動方案研究期末報告。桃園縣政府委託研究報告。

萬文隆（2004）。深度訪談在質性研究中的應用。生活科技教育月刊，37（4），　
17-23。

Irving, H. H.（2005）。家事調解：適用於華人家庭的理論與實踐（王振福、袁菊
花、萇英麗，譯）。香港：香港大學。（原著出版於2005年）。

Mills, G. L.（2004）。錯的是我們不是我（黃煜文，譯）。臺北：商周。（原著出版於2006年）。

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J.（2008）。質性研究方法（藍毓仁，譯）。臺北：巨流。（原著出版於2003年）。

Taylor, A.（2007）。家庭衝突處理─家事調解理論與實務（鄭維瑄，譯）。臺北：學富。（原著出版於2002年）。


ii. 英文部分

Barnett, R. E. (1977). Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader─Texts, sources, context (pp. 46-56). Devon, UK: Willian Publishing.

Bazemore, G. (2005). Whom and How Do We Reintegrate? Finding Community in Restorative Justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 131-148.

Behrendt, L. (2002). Lessons from the Mediation Obsession: Ensuring that Sentencing ‘Alternatives’ Focus on Indigenous Self-Determination. In H. Strang, & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Blagg, H. (2002). Restorative Justice and Aboriginal Family Violence: Opening a Space for Healing. In H. Strang, & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 191-205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Braitewaite, J. (1996). Restorative Justice and a Better Future. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader─Texts, sources, context (pp. 83-124). Devon, UK: Willian Publishing.

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. New York: Oxford Publishing.

Braithwaite, J. & Strang, H. (2001). Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Burkemper, B. & Balsam, N. (2007). Examining the Use of Restorative Justice Practices in Domestic Violence Cases. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 27(1), 121-134.

Busch, R. (2002). Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice Initiatives: Who Pays If We Get It Wrong? In H. Strang, & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 223-248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chandler, D. B. (1999). Violence, Fear, and Communication: The Variable Impact of Domestic Violence on Mediation. Mediatin Quartly, 7(4), 331-346.

Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as Property. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader─Texts, sources, context (pp. 57-68). Devon, UK: Willian Publishing.

Clemants, E. and Gross, A. (2007). “Why Aren’t We Screening?” A Survey Examining Domestic Violence Screening Procedures and Training Protocol in Community Mediation Centers. Conflict Resolusion Quarterly, 24(4), 413-431.

Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing Autonomy for Battered Women: Lessons from Navajo Peacemaking. UCLA Law Review, 47(1), 1-111.

Coker, D. (2002). Transformative Justice: Anti-Subordination Processes in Cases of Domestic Violence. In H. Strang, & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 128-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Daly, K. (2002). Sexual Assault and Restorative Justice. In H. Strang, & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 62-88). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, A. & Sharpe, S. (2004). Restorative Justice in the Context of Domestic Violence: A Literature Review. Edmonton, Canada: Mediation and Restorative Justice Centre.

Edwards, A. & Haslett, J. (2003). Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: Advancing the Dialogue. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Restorative Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Ferguson, J. (2007). Professional Discretion and the Use of Restorative Justice Programs in Appropriate Domestic Violence Cases: An Effective Innovation. American University Criminal Law Brief, 4(2), 3-22.

Frederick, L & Lizdas C. K. (2010). The Role of Restorative Justice in the Battered Women’s Movement. In J. Ptacek (Ed.), Restorative Justice and Violence against Women (pp. 39-59). New York, US: Oxford University Press.

Fulkerson, A. (2001). The Use of Victim Impact Panels in Domestic Violence Cases: A Restorative Justice Approach. Contemporary Justice Review, 4(3, 4), 355-368.

Girdner, L. K. (1990). Mediation Triage: Screening for Spouse Abuse in Divorce Mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 7(4), 365-376.

Goel, R. (2010). Aboriginal Women and Political Pursuit in Canadian Sentencing Circles: At Cross Roads or Cross Purposes? In J. Ptacek (Ed.), Restorative Justice and Violence against Women (pp. 60-78). New York, US: Oxford University Press.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). London: Sage.

Hopkins, Q. C. & Koss, M. P. (2005). Incorporating Feminist Theory and Insights into a Restorative Justice Response to Sex Offenses. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 693-723.

Hudson, B. (1998). Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence. Journal of Law and Society, 25(2), 237-256.

Hyden, M. (1995). Verbal Aggression as Prehistory of Woman Battering. Journal of Family Violence, 10(1), 55-71.

Koss, M. (2000). Blame, Shame, and Community: Justice Responses to Violence against Women. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1332-1343.

Landau, T. (2004). How to Put the Community in Community-Based Justice: Some Views of Participants in Criminal Court Diversion. The Howard Journal, 43(2), 131-148.

Lemley, E. C. (2001). Designing Restorative Justice Policy: An Analytical Perspective. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 43-65.

Marshall, T. F. (1999). Restorative Justice: An Overview. London, UK: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

Martin, P. (1996). Restorative Justice─A Family Violence Perspective. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 6, 413-431.

Maxwell, J. P. (1999). Mandatory Mediation of Custody in the Face of Domestic Violence Suggestions for Courts and Mediators. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37(3), 335-355.

Ministry of Justice & Law Enforcement Republic of Hungary. (2010). European Best Practices of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Procedure. Budapest, Hungary: Ministry of Justice & Law Enforcement Republic of Hungary.

Ministry of Justice. (2004), Restorative Justice─Best Practicing in New Zealand. Wellington, Australia: Ministry of Justice.

Ministry of Justice. (2007). Review of the Use of Restorative Justice in Family Violence Cases in the Rotorua District. New Zealand, Australia: Ministry of Justice.

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. (2006). Crime Prevention Information Series 3: Restorative Justice. British Columbia, United States: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Victim Services and Crime Prevention.

Pranis, K. (2002). Restorative Values and Confronting Family Violence. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 23-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Provincial Association against Family Violence, Newfoundland and Labrador. (2000). Making it Safe: Women, Restorative Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Canada: Department of Justice.

Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan. (2000). Restorative Justice: Is It Justice for Battered Women?　Saskatchewan, Canada: Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan.

Rodriguez, N. (2005). Restorative Justice, Communities, and Delinquency: Whom Do We Reintegrate? Criminology& Public Policy, 4(1), 103-130.

Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 355-379.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.

Stubbs, J. (2002). Domestic Violence and Women’s Safety: Feminist Challenges to Restorative Justice. In H. Strang, & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence, (pp. 42-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

The Transition House Association of Nova Scotia. (2000). Abused Women in Family Mediation: A Nova Scotia Snapshot. Canada: The Transition House Association of Nova Scotia.

U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. (2006). Handbook on Restorative Justice　Programmes. New York, United Nations: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Umbreit, M. and Armour, M. P. (2010). Restorative Justice Dialogue: An Essential Guide for Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Umbreit, M. S. and Zehr, H. (1996). Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Models and Guidelines for Practice. Federal Probation, 60(3), 24-29.

Yellott, A. W. (1990). Mediaton and Domestic Violence: A Call for Collaboration. Mediation Quartly, 8(1), 39-50.

Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.

Zehr, H. (1985). Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader─Texts, sources, context (pp. 69-82). Devon, UK: Willian Publishing.