社會工作背景的修復促進者工作經驗研究

The Study of Working Experience of Restorative Justice Facilitator with Social Work Background

陳介士(Chieh-Shih Chen)

指導教授 ： 吳慧菁

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/社會工作學研究所/碩士(2021年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202102767

摘要

修復式司法是未來司法改革中重要的一環，而促進者是制度運作中不可或缺的角色，然國內對於修復促進者的認識與研究仍十分有限，在司法或社會工作領域中也較缺乏專精化的訓練課程，顯示修復促進者的角色和觀點有待更多的觀察和討論。故本研究期望探討修復式司法制度下促進者的工作經驗與感受，並了解社會工作專業在修復式司法中扮演的角色，以及臺灣自推行修復式司法以來所面對的困難與挑戰；期能透過對修復促進者經驗的探討，提出對現有制度與實務運作的建議，提高修復式司法的適用性。
本研究採用質性研究方法進行半結構式深度訪談，以立意抽樣和滾雪球抽樣選取四位研究參與者，參與者皆為具社會工作相關背景（曾就讀社會工作相關系所或目前正在教授社會工作）的修復促進者，且曾經辦兩件案件以上，包含兩名男性及兩名女性，其工作地分布於北區、中區和南區，年資介於五年至十年以上。
本研究發現，在制度設計和實務運作上，由於修復式司法在現行司法體制中並不具決定性的功能，導致檢察官和當事人使用的意願低落，而目前負責派案的觀護人，則可能因對案件不了解，不易派出最合適的促進者，皆會影響修復式司法的使用成效。此外，目前修復式司法的資源和經費較為不足，導致其運作的穩定性受到限制。在促進者的工作上，本研究發現修復式司法本身具跨專業的特性，修復促進者的專業背景亦多有不同，需時常和跨領域的工作者合作交流，而具社會工作專業背景的促進者較具會談能力和善於連結資源的優勢，但對法律知識的掌握較為有限。政府目前對修復促進者的法律規範和保障尚不完備，僅有一套促進者需遵守的倫理規範，以保障當事人的權益，但促進者在工作中的替代性創傷等議題仍需自行尋求民間單位的協助。
根據上述研究結果，本研究提出針對現行修復式司法相關制度與實務之建議，在制度層面，應重新確立政府和民間單位合作的模式，確保整體運作和資源的穩定性，並將修復式司法制度化，提升其在體制運作中的重要性，且需明確界定修復進行的時間點，提高民眾使用修復式司法的意願；實務運作上則需促進跨單位和跨專業間更有效的合作，避免不同專業間的溝通問題成為阻礙。而在教育體制方面，建議將修復式司法的概念和運作融入國民教育，強化民眾的司法知能，增進修復式司法的推行和成效。

關鍵字

修復式司法 ； 修復促進者 ； 社會工作

並列摘要

Restorative justice is an integral part of the future development of judicial policies. Restorative Justice Facilitators (RJFs) play an important role in implementation of the restorative justice. As current research on RJFs remains limited and there is a lack of specialized training in the fields of legal studies and social work, further research is needed to shed lights on the role function and perspectives of RJFs. Therefore, this study aims to explore the working experiences of RJFs under the current restorative justice system, to understand the roles of the Taiwanese social work profession in the field of restorative justice, as well as to identify challenges in the implementation of restorative justice. Based on the RJFs’ experiences, this study hopes to provide recommendations for practices and policy reform in restorative justice.
This study utilized a qualitative research method and conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews. Four research participants were selected through intentional, snowball sampling strategies, coming from northern, central, and southern parts of Taiwan. Two participants were women. All the participants had social work backgrounds, either having social work degrees or teaching social work in an university at the time of the study. All the participants were RFJs who had worked for more than 5 years and handled at least two cases.
This study found that, on the individual level, by designs and in practice, because restorative justice does not enjoy the formal authority in the current judicial system, prosecutors and parties are unmotivated to utilize the services. Additionally, because prosecutors are unfamiliar with, or give less weight to restorative justice, they will not actively refer clients to the restorative justice services. The probation officers in charge of case management may not understand the details of the cases, and hence may not match the cases with the most suitable RJFs, resulting in decreased efficacy of the restoration justice services. On the institutional level, the current resources and funds of restorative justice services are inadequate, limiting the stability of its operation. Regarding the working experiences of RJFs, this study found that restorative justice services are inter-interdisciplinary, requiring collaboration among different professionals. Social work RJFs have advantages in skillful clinical interviews and resource coordination, yet are limited by insufficient legal knowledge. The current regulatory policies for RJFs are incomplete. There is only a set of ethical guidelines that RJFs must comply with to protect the rights and interests of the service users. However, the RJFs still need to seek help from private organizations on their own budget for issues such as vicarious trauma.
Based on the results, this study provides recommendations for the current restorative justice policy and practice. At the institutional level, the cooperation models between the government and private sectors should be redesigned to ensure the stability of overall operations and resources. Restorative justice needs to be institutionalized, so that its important role of the judicial system may be further highlighted. It is necessary to clearly define the timeframe for restorative justice services, so that clients’ willingness to use restorative justice may increase. It is also important to promote more effective cooperation across organizations and professionals, so that barriers arising from interprofessional communication may be lifted. Finally, it is recommended to integrate the concept of operating restorative justice into the basic education, in order to promote legal knowledge among citizens, and to enhance the implementation and effectiveness of restorative justice.

並列關鍵字

Restorative Justice ； Restorative Justice Facilitators ； Social Work

參考文獻

中文部分

小燈泡的父母及律師團一審程序之最終意見陳述（2017）。〈聯合新聞網〉。取自 https://udn.com/news/story/7315/2402052

公職王（2020）。司法特考觀護人。取自https://www.public.com.tw/exam-civilservice/judicial-probation-overview

今周刊（2018）。一位失去女兒的母親 為何成為修復式司法推手。取自https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80392/post/201810200007/%E4%B8%80%E4%BD%8D%E5%A4%B1%E5%8E%BB%E5%A5%B3%E5%85%92%E7%9A%84%E6%AF%8D%E8%A6%AA%20%E7%82%BA%E4%BD%95%E6%88%90%E7%82%BA%E4%BF%AE%E5%BE%A9%E5%BC%8F%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95%E6%8E%A8%E6%89%8B

中華民國總統府(2017)。司法改革國是會議成果報告。