報復或修復？建構暴力／財產犯罪加、被害人對話機制之研究（下）

Revenge or repair? Establishing proper dialogue frameworks for victims and offenders of violent and property crime

本研究從加被害人的觀點、滿足其司法需求的思維出發，檢視目前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。以訪談及問卷調查方式蒐集資料，總計於 5 個地檢署，訪談 59 位受訪者，完成 55 份問卷。
研究發現，加被害人在司法程序中的需求與期待相當一致且多樣，包括過程層面： 充分告知與自願參與；公正與公平程序；被聆聽、同理與表達；彼此了解與溝通；討論是非對錯；承認錯誤與道歉；勸導或教導；家人朋友的支持陪伴；結果層面： 案件終結；問題行為的改變或解決；實質與物質補償；心理及關係的修復。
其中部分隱含有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，是相互價值觀不斷進行交流、衝撞的過程，對當事人產生正向的支持、促發其行為改變，但亦有時對當事人帶來不便。
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，但為當事人帶來的深層修復成效有限，尤其是兩造關係修復程度低於個人修復程度。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，對修復式司法的認同是同時建立在對修復（加被害人對話）與重罰（懲罰能有效抑制犯罪）觀點的肯定上。
本研究建議：一、促進者需增加工作能力與倫理的敏感度；二、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；三、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。

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. Three expectations: 'to discuss what is right and wrong', 'delivery of education or moral exhortation'and 'ways of problem-solving or improvement'were very much related to the parties'cultural preferences and views of laws and punishment. Through the parties'observation of facilitators'work, facilitators were constantly communicating their own values with the parties'. In some cases, the parties were therefore supported and changed; in other cases, the parties were blamed or harmed again by facilitators.
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. Based on research findings, four suggestions can be made. First, satisfaction with the project or facilitators does not correctly reflect the level that the parties have been restored after the process. Second, facilitators need to improve their work abilities and sensitivity for how their own values affect the parties and how to appropriately respond to the parties'expectations. Third, facilitators should work harder on helping the parties communicate and discuss problems behind the conflict or crime, which can help the parties better restored from harm. Forth, research is needed on discovering the relations among characteristics of cases, the timing of introducing restorative justice processes to the parties, and outcomes of the restorative justice project.