我國修復司法實踐之商榷

A Discourse on Restorative Practices in Taiwan

修復司法（Restorative Justice，或稱修復正義、恢復性司法），雖為「軟性司法」，但絕非全無骨架與結構。在我國不論其翻譯的名稱為何，均非屬任何人的創見，有其豐富的文獻脈絡可循。更值得考量的是，我國官方與民間組織試辦推動超過十年，民間或校園個別實施或研究，僅有部分證據說明被害人參與的滿意度提高，但非屬科學證據等級較高的評估研究，更無證據說明其降低加害人再犯的成效。準此，本文主要目的是（一）闡述實踐修復司法的定義及理論核心概念；（二）說明其實踐方法的多樣性，以及在我國的實踐模式及其證據基礎；（三）期待本文能開啟學術辯論對話，思辨目前修復司法在我國實踐，未來的科學依據，除了善意，尚須與理論、證據保持一定的親近性。

Restorative justice in Chinese has been translated into different versions. Many academics and practitioners in Taiwan now claim their authorities in this area. This paper argues that a well-known theory should not be“owned” by one person, one institute, or has only one interpretation when it is translated into a different language and practiced in a different country. Worst of all, some practitioners are not welcome challenges and debates in academics. This paper again offers a discourse that restorative justice might be viewed as“soft justice”, however, it is by no means a theory without boundaries or a theory with no room for arguments. On the other hand, some evidence in Taiwan has shown that restorative justice increases the satisfaction of victims or their family members. The level of evidence though is far less than satisfied based on Maryland Scientific Methods Standards. It is also dangerous that no or little scientific evidence thus far has been identified in Taiwan to state the effectiveness of restorative justice on reduction of recidivism. The aims of this paper are to, first of all, illustrate the core concepts of restorative practices in literature; second, it is to compare its multiple practices in Taiwan both in justice and school systems; and third, it is to introduce positive and negative evidence-based of restorative justice in literature. It calls attentions of Taiwanese academics and practitioners to build their own scientific evidence. At last and most importantly, this paper attempts to provide a discourse on how restorative justice should not be turned to a“monopoly and money-making business”. Human kindness without scientific evidence should too be challenged more seriously to its academic legitimacy before restorative justice takes places in national legal and educational policies in Taiwan.