● 中文摘要：

       雖然修復式司法的理念在國際間已經有非常多的討論與實踐，各界至今對於何謂修復式司法卻仍有爭議。大致上來說，修復式司法可分為「純粹模式」與「最大化模式」兩種，前者著重於當事人自願的對話程序，強調對話與溝通；後者著重的是結果，並不以當事人的參與為必要條件，只要可以修復犯罪所生的損害即可，且其所謂的修復可能是象徵性地修復抽象的損害。筆者認為，基於修復式司法的精神，前者才是落實修復式司法理念的較佳途徑。而紐西蘭政府自 2001 年起所推行的「法院轉介之修復式司法試行方案」，是以「純粹模式」作為制度設計的出發點，尊重當事人的意願，提供友善對話的環境，同時又能兼顧司法實務的需求，不僅在理論上可?純粹模式的可行性提供依據，也足以作為我國未來試行相關措施的參考。

● English Abstract：

     The concept of "restorative justice" has received wide-spread discussions internationally and has been put into practice, but there are still controversies over the definition of "restorative justice".
There are two models in restorative justice, the Purist Model and the Maximalist Model. The Purist Model focuses on the voluntary interaction process between the victim and the offender of crime, and emphasis conversation and communication between the two. The Maximalist Model emphasizes the outcome of the restoration effort, and the participation by the primary stakeholders is not a pre-requisite element as long as restoration has been done, even if harm has only been repaired at a notional level.
This article believes that on the basis of the principles of restorative justice, the purist model is the proper method of putting the concept of restorative justice into practice.
The "Court-referred Restorative Justice Pilot" ran by the New Zealand government in 2001 is a program based on the Purist model. The program aimed to facilitate a friendly environment in which the primary stakeholders may communicate and comply with the requirements of judicial practice. It is an example worthy of reference when we consider adopting restorative justice process to criminal cases.

● 文章連結：

https://goo.gl/zYKdyP

● 資料來源：

法源法律網