● 中文摘要：

　　本研究從加被害人的觀點、滿足其司法需求的思維出發，來檢視目前臺灣修復式司法方案的成效、當事人滿意度、對修復式司法的認同。本研究透過5個地檢署的協助，採取訪談及問卷調查兩種方式蒐集資料。最後，共訪談了59位受訪者，並完成了55份問卷。 研究發現，加被害人在司法程序中的需求與期待多樣，可劃分為過程及結果層面的需求與期待。在過程層面，包含八項需求與期待：（1）充分告知、自願參與，（2）公正、公平的過程，（3）彼此了解、溝通，（4）被聆聽、同理、表達，（5）討論是非對錯，（6）承認錯誤、道歉，（7）勸導或教導，（8）家人朋友支持陪伴。在結果層面，包含五項需求與期待：（1）案件終結、（2）行為問題的改變與解決、（3）實質物質補償、（4）心理修復、（5）具安全性考量的關係修復。而其中，討論是非對錯、勸導或教導、行為問題的改變與解決，都含有加被害人個人的社會文化期待及家庭、宗教、道德、刑罰觀點。而促進者與當事人工作的過程，便是不斷地以其價值觀與當事人的價值觀進行交流、衝撞的過程，有時對當事人產生正向的支持、促發其行為改變，少部分有時也會對當事人帶來困擾。 研究亦發現：當事人對於方案的滿意度高、對於促進者工作效能的評價佳，但方案為當事人帶來的深層修復成效仍有限，尤其是兩造關係修復程度低於個人修復程度（生活、身體財產、心理層面修復）。而能促進兩造互動、彼此了解、充分討論問題行為則是提升當事人修復程度的關鍵因素。 最後，對當事人而言，修復式正義與應報式正義並非完全的對立，而是並存的。多數被告、被害人皆有修復傷害、修復關係的期待，但同時也肯定處罰觀點對抑制犯罪的效益。從本研究多元迴歸分析亦發現，當事人對修復式司法的認同是同時建立在對修復觀點（「加被害人對話」）與重罰觀點（「懲罰能有效抑制犯罪」）的肯定上。 根據以上研究發現，本研究建議一、方案評估不應僅調查當事人的方案滿意度、對促進者的工作滿意度，兩者皆無法正確反映方案成效、方案實際為當事人帶來的修復程度。二、促進者需增加自己工作能力與倫理的敏感度：觀察到自己價值觀的涉入情形及所造成的影響、且積極地覺察、謹慎地處理當事人個人的價值期待。三、促進者需多在兩造互動、彼此了解、問題行為討論的目標上努力，可幫助當事人損害修復。四、未來可進一步研究案件特性、修復式司法適用時機與成效的關係。 

● English Abstract:

     This study aims to look into the needs and expectations of victims and offenders in the process of dealing with crime. Through prospects of participating victims and the accused, the effects of the Taiwan Restorative Justice Initiative, participants’ satisfaction of this program, and participants’ support for restorative justice are examined. With assistance of five District Prosecutors’ Offices, 59 interviews were conducted and 55 copies of the questionnaire were collected. The research finds that victims and offenders had multiple needs and expectations when dealing with crime that they are involved in. These needs and expectations can be identified in regard to processes or results. It is also found that the parties had high satisfaction with the program that they participated in and the facilitators who handled their cases. But the parties reported that they gained relatively low level of restoration after the restorative justice process. There were poor outcomes in the personal restoration (of their material, bodily, and psychological damages), and much poorer outcomes in the relationship restoration between them and the other party. More interactions, mutual understanding, and sufficient discussion on problems and mistakes between two parties were the key to achieve better outcomes of restoration. Lastly, to the parties, restorative justice is compatible with retributive justice. In the process of handling their cases, many of the accused and victims expected to restore harms from and broken relationships with the other party, but in the meanwhile, they expected punishment to be imposed so as to efficiently warn the other party and stop crime. Also, the parties’ support for restorative justice was found very much related to their appreciation of ‘dialogue between victim and offender’ and their belief in ‘punishment addresses crime efficiently’. To the parties, punishment did not need to be excluded from restorative justice practices.

● 文章連結：

https://goo.gl/UEfsMw

● 資料來源：

政府研究資訊系統