● 中文摘要：

　　家庭暴力防治法公佈施行以來，大多數法官對家庭暴力已經不再存有迷思，然而這樣的態度轉變是否也反映並落實在他們對具體個案的量刑抉擇？會不會一些根深蒂固的傳統思維其實仍舊左右著他們的量刑結果？以此，本研究的目的，主要即在探索法官對於家庭暴力案件的科刑選擇及其審酌事由，並尋求影響家庭暴力罪量刑輕重的關鍵因子；另一方面，則藉由分析法官在具體案例中的量刑判斷，檢視法官如何透過他們的刑罰裁量權限對家庭暴力作出具體回應。

本研究選擇藉由質性的深度訪談，利用研究者自行設計的8個虛擬案例（其中包括7個典型的家庭暴力事件、1個發生在陌生人間的暴力事件）作為訪談實施工具，以取代一般質性研究的訪談大綱，使20名受訪法官斟酌這些案例中的描述情節而為刑罰科處決定，並說明裁量之依據和理由，之後再兩兩比較案例之間的科刑輕重及審酌依據。

研究結果發現，儘管家庭暴力防治法公佈施行多年，包括「施暴丈夫長期失業」、「被害妻子違背傳統對於好女人的期待」都有可能成為法官據以寬容對待加害人、嚴苛譴責被害人的關鍵影響因子。至於「當事人為夫妻關係」則使得該暴力行為的「犯罪本質」經常被忽略，並且難以跳脫「家務事」的迷思。再者，「勸和不勸離」的傳統價值思維依然左右法官對於家庭暴力案件的審理方式，「家庭完整性的期待」被置於現行法禁止不法侵害行為之上的價值判斷，使得部分法官並未正視家庭暴力被害婦女的人身安全問題，卻以維護家庭和諧、免於婚姻破裂之名積極勸諭當事人於訴訟外和解，要求被害人應該諒解與寬恕不合理的對待方式。

● English Abstract: 

     Following the enactment of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, judges cannot ignore the reality of domestic violence. However, has the legislation produce attitude change in relation to sentencing decisions? How do traditional thoughts play a role in affecting decisions? By interviewing 20 judges on their sentencing decisions on 8 vignette cases, this study intends to analyze the extra-legal factors affecting sentencing decisions for domestic violent offenders. Judges were asked to suggest an appropriate sentence and give their reasons for the specific cases. The eight vignettes described typical incidents of domestic and stranger violence (including seven incidents of domestic violence and an incident of violence happening via strangers). Comparing the sentencing decisions of each pair case (#1 and #2, #4 and #5 etc.) allows us to examine how judges decision-making is related to factors such as the employment status of the husband, “bad wife or mother”, repeated offender, presence of children, public/private area, and under influence of alcohol.

The results indicated that judges tended to reduce the culpability of the domestic violence offender when the variable ‘the husband has been out of work for a long time’ factor was present and ascribe blame to the victim in the presence of the variable ‘failure of the wife to fulfill stereotypical female roles’; this is in spite of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Furthermore, judges often disregarded the criminal essence of the assault when it was committed against a partner, with many of the supposedly aggravating factors leading to the incident being seen as a less serious criminal matter, and more of a domestic quarrel. In addition, in the partner assault cases, some of the judges required the victim to forgive and excuse the offender with the purpose of keeping the family harmonious and avoiding marriage breakdown.

● 文章連結：https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u9kf3b

● 資料來源：臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統