社會安全網政策的未來：修復式司法實踐的可能性

Integrating Restorative Justice into Social Safety Net Policies: A Strength-Based Approach for Offenders with Mental Illness

研究目的：社會安全網政策試圖結合刑事司法和精神衛生系統，透過個案管理、追蹤與個別化介入減少罹精神疾病者的高風險行為。可知矯正、司法、社政、精神健康專業人員需要跨領域合作，找尋合適的協作方案。研究方法：透過文獻回顧與案例分析，探討修復式正義實踐對罹精神疾病犯罪者復元可能帶來的好處。研究結果：由文獻回顧可知，監獄和司法精神醫療單位收容人的精神疾病診斷樣態有差異。奠基於正向犯罪學與正向心理學理論，優勢為本介入模式（strength-based model）應能帶來與缺陷導向介入模式（defect-based model）不同的實作觀點。透過檢視三位與刑事司法系統交會的罹精神疾病者與其周圍關係人的衝突修復過程，我們看見加害人出於自身意願試圖道歉，其中有兩位在被害人出席修復式團體會議過程中得以與被害人修復關係。研究結論：未來社會安全網政策如有增訂之需，修復式正義概念應有機會促成精神健康專業人員和刑事司法系統對話、協作，進而強化參與者的正向關係和復元因子。

Purpose: Taiwan’s social safety net policy integrates the criminal justice and mental health systems with the goal of applying case management, community follow-up, and personalized intervention to reduce risky behavior in individuals with mental illness. Within this context, restorative justice- a practice that emphasizes accountability, victim-offender dialogue, and community reintegration- has been proposed as a recovery-oriented alternative to punitive or exclusively clinical approaches. We examined how restorative justice practices (e.g., mediated apologies, community reintegration planning, relationship-repair interventions) may support the rehabilitation of offenders with mental illness, and how such practices align with the social safety net policy emphasis on interprofessional collaboration and communitybased recovery. Method: We conducted a literature search using the keywords restorative justice, forensic psychiatry, social safety net, risk behavior, offender rehabilitation, and mental illness. We identified 47 articles for analysis addressing (1) recovery-oriented forensic psychiatry (n = 21), (2) restorative justice in criminal justice settings (n = 19), and (3) interprofessional collaboration models (n = 7). Additionally, we analyzed 3 forensic psychiatric case records obtained from a Ministry of Health affiliated forensic psychiatric ward. These cases involved adult male offenders diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum or severe mood disorders who exhibited violent or high-risk behaviors. Results: The literature review indicated clear differences in diagnostic profiles for individuals in prison populations and in forensic psychiatric units, which suggests that the 2 systems encounter distinct subgroups of offenders with mental illnesses (i.e., more severe psychotic and affective disorders in forensic psychiatric units, and higher rates of personality disorders and substance use in prisons). According to the literature review, these differences necessitate interprofessional collaboration, not because both systems serve identical populations, but because successful rehabilitation requires continuity of treatment, legal coordination, and community-based risk management as individuals transition between systems. A strengthbased recovery model, drawn from positive psychology and criminology, emerged in the literature as a promising alternative to deficit-focused approaches. Conclusions: Within this strength-based recovery framework, restorative justice practices can offer structured pathways to enhance accountability, reduce stigma, and support recovery-oriented risk reduction. This insight suggests that restorative justice can serve as a key mechanism within social safety net policies to promote meaningful rehabilitation for offenders with mental illnesses.