泰雅族正義模式內涵與實施機制之研究

A Study on the Concept of Justice and Practices Mechanism in Atayal Tribe

張謹名(Ching-Ming Chang)

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(2007年)

摘要

我國原住民有其傳統的社會規範，其以宗教、生態、尊重耆老等方式融洽排解部落內的犯罪事件、紛爭。Braithwaite指出，修復式、懲罰式及隔離式正義等刑事政策模式之間應為一種先後次序的關係。先採用良好的修復式正義即可減少懲罰式正義模式的使用。本研究主旨有二：回顧探索傳統原住民排解衝突之正義方式及其實施機制之變遷。此不僅可為原住民的傳統文化進一份心力，更可以為未來刑事政策之修改充作借鏡。

而本研究係以焦點團體法、深度訪談法為主，文獻分析法為輔。首先從9人的焦點團體訪談中做初步探索性研究，再從所蒐集的文獻中發展出訪談大綱。最後以配額抽樣法在研究場域針對調解人、召集人與公正人士共抽樣8人做9次的深度訪談，得以架構出研究概念並整理研究發現。

本研究首先從各個不同的正義模式中逐一與泰雅族傳統正義觀作比較與分析，進而發現其與應報式正義與矯治式正義大相逕庭。而與賠償式正義、修復式正義、以及復仇式正義或有關聯。最後深入探索泰雅族傳統正義模式之內涵與其處理衝突事件的調解機制。

研究發現，在正義內涵方面，泰雅族傳統正義模式與修復式正義之間兩者有著極高的關連性，調解機制則從早期的「修復圈模式」，經由日治以前、日治當時，以及台灣光復後至今三個不同且特殊的政治、時空、環境背景之演變，轉變為現今的調解人居中進行的「協議模式」。而泰雅族核心價值「Gaga」、「Utux」也隨著大環境的改變而有所不同。目前部落較多數的人是選擇傳統調解機制來處理紛爭，而有較少的人選擇正式的刑事司法體系。

最後研究建議1.社會應該重新關懷原住民社區與部落的發展。2.可在原住民社區試行綜融式的刑事司法體系3.在嚴刑峻罰之外，應該建立國民良好的道德價值觀，才是提升自我控制最好的方式。

關鍵字

正義模式 ； 修復式正義 ； 泰雅族 ； 調解 ； 調解機制

並列摘要

The aboriginals of Taiwan have their own traditional social standards of behavior, and they disembroil the crimes and troubles in the tribes according to the religion, the ecology, and the respect for the old. Dr. John Braithwaite has said, “There should be an priority among criminal policies: Restorative Justice, Retributive Justice and Incapacitation Justice. While Restorative Justice takes the top priority, it can reduce the need to use Retributive Justice policy. There are two goals in this study: looking back and search for aboriginal ways of the disembroiling and understanding the conciliatory mechanism and it’s transition. Therefore, this study not only deepens our understanding to the aboriginal culture of but also sets a model of the amendment of criminal policies.

This research used focused interviews and in-depth interview methods as the principal methodologies, then use documentary analysis method as secondary important approach. First, we made initial exploratory investigation by using focused interviews method of 9 persons in Atayal aboriginal community. Second, we developed an interview outline through collecting documents and bibliographies. Third, we conducted in-depth interviews of 8 persons in 9 times, who were sampled by quota sampling method. The sample was classified into three categories: conciliator, convener and eyewitness. Finally, we established research concepts and arranged the study results.

First of all, the research analyzes and compares each justice model with the traditional justice mode of Atayal Tribe, then finds out that Atayal Tribe’s justice model is largely different from Retributive Justice and Corrective Justice but consistent with Compensational Justice, Restorative Justice and Private Vengeance. In the end, the research probingly gropes the concept of the traditional justice model of Atayal Tribe and their conciliatory mechanism of the conflicts.

According to the research, the concept of Atayal’s traditional justice model highly correlates with Restorative Justice Model. The changes of politics, time, and environments in the pre-Japanese colonial rule, Japanese colonial rule, and the restoration until nowadays transformed the early Restorative Justice Model into present Intergrated Model which is carried out by the intermediate. And Atayal’s core values, “Gaga” and “Utux,” are different as the environment changed. At present, most people in the tribes choose traditional conciliatory mechanism to deal with troubles and conflicts，while very few choose formal criminal justice system.

In conclusion, the suggestions of the research are as the following:
1. The society should show care for the development of aboriginal communities and tribes.
2. Criminal judicial system could be tried executing in aboriginal communities.
3. Besides severe laws and punishments, to cultivate people good moral values is the best way to improve self-control.

並列關鍵字

Justice Model ； Restorative Justice ； Atayal Tribe ； Conciliation ； Conciliatory Mechanism

參考文獻

1994 《質的教育研究法》。台北：師大書苑。

許士楷、施正鋒、布興•大立

2005 ＜環境刑罰與修復式正義之探討＞。《犯罪學期刊》8（1）：156-183。

1997 ＜西方的正義概念初探＞，《鵝湖》。23（4）：49-56

2003 ＜修復式正義的實踐理念與途徑---參與式刑事司法＞。《犯罪與刑事司法研究》1：37-65。