● 摘要：

　　(一)政策論證是政策分析的重要工具之一，但過去較少應用在討論一國的犯罪被害人保護政策。由於傳統實證途徑研究方法無法反映台灣被害人保護政策論述的獨特場域，本研究嘗試以Stephen Edelston Toulmin的論證結構模式分析其中兩場主要會議中發表的文章與參與者發言，輔以參與觀察、深度訪談、問卷調查等資料，歸納三類主要論證（保守論證、改革論證、務實論證）及九項主張。研究者分析比較三類論證的結構、理性基礎、證據效度、以及隱藏的假設，發現應用多元資料來源的論證分析可以描繪台灣犯罪被害人保護政策議題的複雜性與衝突所在。由於越來越多的內外壓力要求刑事政策應反映多元價值與意識型態，研究者與決策者除了可應用論證分析技巧討論立法與修法議題外，也可應用公開場域審議不同利害關係人論述主張以評估現行措施、研擬改進方案，進而提升政策合法性。(二)過去對於被害人需求及其接受保護機構服務的頻率與滿意度等多以橫斷面調查呈現，可能忽略了不同被害人在不同復原階段的需求不同。其次，討論被害人與保護機構的關係而不探究被害人在訴訟階段與刑事司法機構的關係也顯得見樹不見林。本研究以質性途徑訪談了四位經歷不同階段的被害人，瞭解其復原歷程的阻力和助力，輔以長期接觸被害人的檢察官、犯保人員、社工與志工等訪談發現，希冀找出保護組織與刑事司法機構在扮演被害人社會支持力量可能的賦能要素。研究結果發現：對被害服務及參與訴訟有強烈需求的被害人中不乏社會支持薄弱者，而訴訟過程也極容易讓他們再度陷入資源失落的循環。此時，與之接觸的刑事司法與保護機構人員若能瞭解被害人的創傷與悲傷反應，而以正向互動技巧提升其權能感時，可減少訴訟的二次傷害並協助復原。研究者最後提出三層次的支持體系，對被害人復原歷程中刑事司法、被害支持服務以及社會大眾的角色與工作重點提供建議。 

● English Abstract:

     1.Policy argumentation, an important tool for policy analysis, was rarely used on exploring national victim protection policy. However, traditional empirical research methods fail to reflect the field-dependent nature of victim policy argument. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the discourses in two major evaluation and revision of Taiwan Victim Protection Act conferences using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’’s model of argument. Above analysis is then supplemented by both quantitative and qualitative data colected from participative observation, in-depth interviews, and questionnaire survey to contextualize the forming of issue network and representative arguments. Nine claims are defined and summaried into three arguments, namly: conservative, reformative, and practical argument. Each of the argument is then appraised according to its structure, rationality, evidence, validity, and hidden assuption. It is concluded that argument analysis using multiple sources of data is useful in outlining the complexities and conflicts of victim protection policy in Taiwan. Since the criminal justice policy arena is under increasing pressure to reflect more diverse values and ideologies, I suggest that future researchers should utilize argument analysis during law drafting and revision. On reviewing current criminal justice projects and measures, policy makers will also gain more legitimacy through providing public arenas for cross examination of policy claims by representative stakeholders.2.Previous literature on the use and assessment of victim services was mainly based on cross-sectional survey, making it difficult to address the changing needs of victims in their different recovery stages. In addition, it seems limited to elucidateing the relationships between victims and service providers without taking into account victims’’ concerns during the criminal procedure. The current study intends to explore any empowering and supporting measures which criminal justice and victim service organizations may offer when dealing with victims. 

● 文章連結：

https://goo.gl/PRbsSJ

● 資料來源：

政府研究資訊系統