● 中文摘要：

　　目的：為因應法官裁定家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫的困難，而設計出裁定前鑑定制度已有三年多，然而，全國實施處遇計畫與裁定前鑑定的件數與家庭暴力案件明顯不成比例，處遇的療效亦未做評估，因此，本研究的主要目的是：（1）描述與分類接受鑑定家庭暴力加害人流行病學特徵與相關危險因素，做為後續擬定處遇計畫的參考，（2）分類加害人，（3）編撰與推廣家庭暴力相對人鑑定書範本，（3）設計，並做評估實用性的多元化處遇計畫以做改版及強化理論依據，（4）追蹤一年的家庭暴力再犯率，並比較有無實施處遇計畫的療效，（5）探討實施處遇計畫偏低的原因與評估從業人員教育訓練成效。

　　方法：這是一個二年期，併用量性與質性方法的實徵型研究計畫，第一年的計畫是：（1）以描述與分析流行病學的方法，將過去三年以及研究期間的全國實施裁定前鑑定制度北、中、南各一個法院的鑑定書內容621份，作一分析，探討加害人的特徵與危險因素，並做分類比較。（2）分析鑑定書內容，依據家庭暴力相對人的特徵（包括成長經驗、行為模式、家庭婚姻互動與人格特質）、會談時的阻抗處理、危險再犯因素的收集與描述與評估危險因素及治療計畫的可行性等內容，並分類各類加害人，(3)對加害人與工作人員做質性訪談，以在研究期間的第一年與前一年所做的個案做評估，評估的對象分別是相對人、被害人與治療人員，所運用的方法為問卷調查與質性訪談，訪談者經過三天至一週的訓練，問卷內容由研究人員依據國內外文獻與臨床實務編撰，並經專家效度檢驗後定案。所得的結果作為改版與強化處遇計畫的理論論述。

　　結果：本研究共收集北（新竹）、中（台中）、南（高雄）三法院之鑑定書達621份，其中資料完整者有540位家庭暴力相對人。分析完整資料組之540位家庭暴力相對人，絕大多是為婚姻暴力案件，高達401（74.3%）件，其次為兒童虐待有97（18%）件，大部分的相對人為男性計有512位（94.8%）；年齡層集中在壯年居多（31~50歲），占71.9%，教育程度以國、高中居多，分別有153位（28.3%）及217位（40.2%）。近三成的家暴相對人與兄弟姐妹間的關係不良甚至是衝突，值得注意的是高達六成（58.8%）的相對人有酒藥癮的問題，而大約三分之ㄧ的相對人曾有犯案前科，有一半的相對人直接對聲請人採暴力攻擊的方式，並造成約四分之三的聲請人身體遭受傷害，然而卻只有51.1%的家暴相對人承認此次的家暴事件。將個案分成婚暴與兒虐兩組，婚暴相對人被建議接受教育輔導課程的比率約有一半，明顯高於兒童虐待的相對人。在邏輯是回歸分析中，可以看到相對於婚暴相對人兒虐相對人有較年輕（OR=0.94）、婚姻關係不穩定（OR=7.42）、與兄弟姐妹相處較多衝突（OR=2.61）、相對的較少在成聲請人身體傷害（OR=0.54）等傾向。 接著以家庭暴力理論、精神病理與社會心理歸因分類加害人，並以鑑定書的內容編撰案例，並對案例進行分析。另外質性研究的結果發現施暴者建構出的原生家庭裡，父親扮演著威嚴的角色，對個案管教大都採嚴厲的打罵方式，而個案的求學成績表現及人際互動大多不盡理想，甚至有些個案曾經是打架、吸毒、殺人未遂的問題青年；對於挫折及壓力的因應經驗，大都不會採取溝通方式，而是使用壓抑、逃避、喝酒或是吵架等非建設性的方式。在婚姻互動方面，發現施暴者與妻子常為經濟爭吵，溝通模式都以吵架爭執呈現，導致最後演變為暴力相向。而性生活不協調亦是影響婚姻關係的重要因素之一。

　　結論：利用理論與病因可以有效的分類家庭暴力加害人，並且編撰各類加害人鑑定書範本（將在第二年計畫初完成）以加強處遇計畫的的理論論述。並且從本研究裡提供衛生署施政建議，內容包括：相關工作人員的職前訓練、在職教育與防治規劃（尤其是著手編撰訓練手冊，並於在職教育課程中加入替代性創傷處理），加強分析加害人的特性與處遇的必要性，未來可望增加預算並且與其他議題結合訓練健康管理師，增加相關專業之人力，以配合實務之需。

● English Abstract:

     Purpose？HHGThe purpose of this project were:？HH]1？HH^To describe characteristics and risk factors in domestic assailants, and differentiate domestic assailants for references as making treatment strategy.？HH]2？HH^To differentiate domestic assailant. ？HH]3？HH^design and demonstrate the standard prejudice identification papers.？HH]4？HH^To design and evaluate empirical multidimensional treatment strategy and strengthen the theory of treatment strategy in domestic violence.？HH]5？HH^To evaluate one-year reoffense domestic violence.？HH]6？HH^To evaluate the effectiveness and outcome of professional training program.

     Methods: This is a two-year empirical study that combined with qualitative and quantitative method. The procedure of 1st year are？HHG？HH]1？HH^To collect the data of about 621 prejudice identification papers(each one in northern , mid and southern Taiwan civil court) ) in the past three years, and analyze the characteristics and risk factors in domestic assailants with epidemiological method.？HH]2？HH^To design and demonstrate the standard prejudice identification papers according to the characteristics in different domestic assailants (ex: Growth experience, behavior pattern, the intrafamilial interaction and personality trait), the resistance in interview, and treatment amenability ？HHK.etc.？HH]3？HH^To interview domestic assailants, and professional members with qualitative interview and questionnaires. All interviewees should received 3-7 day professional training and all respondents sign informed consents. The validity of questionnaires is expert validity.

     Results: There were 621 prejudice identification papers collected, and 540 papers with complete data were analyzed. Most of domestic violence (DV) was marital violence (n=401, up to 74.3%), and child abuse was the second common DV (n=97, up to 74%). The characteristics of domestic assailants (DA) were male (94.8%), middle-aged (31-50 y/o), medium-low educational level, poor interpersonal relationship, alcohol abuse and so on. About one third of DA had previous criminal record, and a half of DA directly violently assaulted to the victims, resulting in direct physical injury of three fourth of victims, but only about a half of DA confessed the violence. Comparing with assailants of marital violence, the assailants of child abuse were more younger (OR=0.94), more marital discord (OR=7.42), more sibling conflicting (OR=2.61), but respectively less physical injury to victims (OR=0.54). While classifying the DA by DV theory, psychopathology, and psychosocial attribution, the father in the DA original family was more astringent and more violent. However the DA himself had poorer academic performance, poorer interpersonal interaction, more behavioral problems, such as fighting, drug abuse, uncommitted killing. Their coping skills, instead of communication, were in more un-constructed way like suppression, escape, drinking, or arguing. In marital relationship, the DA often quarreled with wife because of financial problems and finally resulted in violence. Sexual discord was also an important factor for the domestic violence.

     Conclusion: After the completion of this project, we could differentiate domestic assailants, demonstrate the standard identification paper, we should design manual of standard operation procedure in domestic violence, and empathize reeducation of professional members. Another, the increase of budget of prevention of domestic violence and combination of other major issues as suicide prevention are necessary. All of the result could offer government as reference. 

● 文章連結：

https://goo.gl/6fF11C

● 資料來源：

政府研究資訊系統