修復式司法用於家庭暴力事件之篩案原則－檢察官與修復促進者之觀點

The Screening of Applying Restorative Justice in Domestic Violence: Perspectives of the Prosecutors and Facilitators

蔡旻君(Min-Jiun Tsai)

指導教授 ： 許春金

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/犯罪學研究所/碩士(2013年)

摘要

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)加卅被害人狀況、(2)雙方互動、(3)被害人是否了解修復式司法、(4)加卅被害人外在因素、(5)案件類型是否適合運用修復式司法、(6)加卅被害人意願、(7)加卅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，包括加卅被害人的陳述與事實落差程度、清楚釐清加卅被害人之加害與受害角色、加卅被害人能控制自身情緒、雙方關係緊張程度低、加卅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。

關鍵字

修復式司法 ； 家庭暴力 ； 修復促進者 ； 篩案原則

並列摘要

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.

並列關鍵字

restorative justice ； domestic violence ； facilitator ； screening

參考文獻

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。

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

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

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