修復式司法在家庭暴力案件的應用：以西歐國家為例

Restorative Justice in Domestic Violence Cases: Examples from Countries in Western Countries

修復式司法最主要的目的是要使犯罪的加害人、被害人及社區都能從犯罪事件的傷害中走出陰霾，療傷止痛，回歸正常（Braithwaite et al., 2012; Umbreit & Armour, 2011）。部分學者以及女性主義倡議者對於修復式司法應用在家庭暴力案件仍存在諸多質疑。其中被害人的人身安全是他們首要質疑的地方。他們認為被害人可能會因權力失衡而導致不利處境，此外部分加害人可能會利用此一非正式程序淡化自身的暴力行為，或將責難轉移至被害人身上，這些疑慮在正式的刑事司法過程中是較不易發生的（Daly, 2006）。雖然修復式司法運用在家暴案件上存在一定的挑戰與風險，然而若經由適當的個案篩選以及完善的風險評估，其效益仍是值得肯定的。本文提出西歐國家修復式司法在家暴案件中的執行現況與流程，以供實務或政策規畫之參考，文末並提出五項具體建議：（一）採行全國統一的認證制度及在職訓練（二） 建立具一致性的篩選機制與標準作業流程（三） 建立各階段危險評估量表（四） 提升處理知能與專業（五） 針對家庭暴力案件之調解協商與後續處遇進行整體規劃。

Restorative justice, an alternative justice model, is designed to repair the harms caused by crime by bringing offenders, victims, and community together. The process of such justice focuses on healing and its goal is to help all parties involved to recover from the harms (Braithwaite et al., 2012; Umbreit & Armour, 2011). It is noted that some scholars and feminists have questioned the worth of applying restorative justice to domestic violence cases. Their primary concern being the safety of the victims, they focus on the nature, in domestic violence, of power imbalance, which to their minds easily leads to disadvantageous situations for victims. In such a view, violent offenders often use the informal process of restorative justice to trivialize violent behavior, or to shift the blame to victims, which would be less of a concern in the formal criminal justice process (Daly, 2006). This paper describes how Western European countries are currently applying restorative justice to domestic violence cases. Special guidelines and risk assessment tools among these countries are highlighted. Although controversies and challenges exist in using restorative justice to domestic violence cases, there are potential benefits if staff, prior to entering the process, follow appropriate guidelines for risk assessment and prudently screen cases. The following suggestions are proposed at the end of the paper: (1) adoption of a nationwide uniform certification system, as well as on the job training; (2) establishment of consistent screening guidelines for practitioners; (3) creation of risk assessment tools at various stages; (4) enhancement of relevant knowledge and professionalism; (5) integration of mediation with follow-up treatments.