重新建構修復式正義

Reframing Restorative Justice

林若榆(Jo-Yu Lin)

指導教授 ： 王皇玉

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201800423

摘要

本文有感於台灣近來隨機殺人、酒駕致死等重大矚目案件頻仍，社會一片肅殺之氣。然而嚴厲的社會風氣並未帶來相對令人感到有安全感的社會，反而促成人人自危、神經衰弱的現況。因此，本文反過來叩問，與肅殺相反、而被視為帶有包容力的修復式正義為何無法在這片無效的重刑社會中展露頭角？
本文認為修復式正義的核心搖擺不清間接導致了修復對象與修復結果的模糊、刑事司法程序與修復式正義的曖昧不請，且無助於拉近社會現況與修復式正義所需要的社會條件。這些進一步種下修復式正義在我國無法生根發展的重要原因。
藉由與傳統修復式正義的比較，本文點出「情感修復」做為新的修復式正義的核心價值。然而，籠統地以「情感修復」一詞作為修復式正義的目標，本文認為會陷入另一種核心不明確的陷阱。因此，「情感」的特殊性質是本文論述的重點，並引導對於「情感修復」的途徑選擇。由於情感的私密性、流動性，本文主張重新建構一個以被害者及加害者「各自為核心」的修復式正義—並稱之為「雙主體的修復式正義」。在尊重雙方當事人存有的前提下，進而展開以個人為主體的修復，並讓雙方的修復衝突出個案的最佳解。
本文認為不同的個案在新建構的修復式正義底下將有不同的修復結果。這樣的修復過程展演並訓練整個社會去接納與包容人際互動的多樣性。在刑事司法系統外，反覆而穩定的修復式正義程序，將回過頭來證明刑事司法以外的社會力量，是有能力化解紛爭的。這更將鞭策刑事司法系統去反思重刑嚴罰的價值，有助於從另一個角度帶動刑事司法系統的改革。

關鍵字

修復式正義 ； 情感修復 ； 關係修復 ； 刑事司法系統 ； 刑事責任 ； 刑罰目的 ； 權力賦予

並列摘要

Due to the high frequency of Random killings and drunk driving casualties in recent years, Taiwan is soaked in an intolerant atmosphere. Though our Legislative Yuan has implemented some strict regulations to solve the crimes driving social attentions, the society doesn’t feel safe accordingly. People tend to feel at risk in their daily lives and the society suffers Neurasthenia as a whole. Therefore, this article questions: If Restorative justice is an opposite treatment to harsh punishment, when the harsh punishment seems to prove useless today, why isn’t Restorative Justice a new rising star?
This paper argues that the core value of restorative justice is ambiguous and that it results in the difficulty of defining not only the object of restorative justice, but also the effort of restorative justice. Even more problematic, missing the core value also blurs the boundaries between restorative justice and criminal justice system. These problems together sow seeds of calamity, forbidding restorative justice to earn its potential influence in Taiwan.
After comparing with traditional restorative justice, this paper points out “emotion restoration” to be the core value of restorative justice. However, without clarifying “emotion restoration”, we might fall into another trap of unclear. Therefore, this paper put an effort on defining the special nature of “emotion. According to the fluidity and private characteristic of emotion, this paper advocates to reframe a restorative justice system to a dual subject restorative justice, that bases equally on the victim and the offender. The victim and the offender are the two centers of two independent restoration processes. This system should recognize the existence of both partners and let the restoration of an offender encounter the restoration of a victim. The outcome of each case therefore will bear their own characteristic.
The repeated performing of this restorative justice system will be able to train the society to accept and include the diversity of interpersonal relationships. Restorative justice can prove that instead of the criminal justice system, the power from the society has the ability to solve disputes and conflicts. This will then force the criminal justice system to rethink the value of heavy penalty and severe punishment, and help to spur the reform of criminal justice system from another perspective.

並列關鍵字

Restorative Justice ； Emotion Restoration ； Relation Restoration ； Criminal Justice System ； Criminal Liability ； Theories of Punishment ； Empowerment

參考文獻

王正嘉（2012）。〈犯罪被害人影響刑事量刑因素初探〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，頁57-94。

王玥好（2004）。〈童年期性創傷婦女處理原諒議題之歷程〉，《台灣性學學刊》，第十卷，第一期，頁35-51。

周愫嫻、Bill Hebenton合著（2010.06）。〈刑罰是知識結構與文化的鏡子：台灣與英國嚴刑重罰趨勢之比較研究〉，《台大法學論叢》，第39卷第2期，頁433-472。

許春金（2003）。〈修復式正義的實踐理念與途徑－參與式刑事司法〉，《犯罪於刑事司法研究》，第一期，頁37-66。

許春金、陳玉書、黃政達合著（2007）。〈調解制度中受調解人修復性影響因素之研究----修復式正義觀點〉，《犯罪與刑事司法研究》，第九期，頁1-54。