| 英文摘要 |
In view of the fact that traditional criminology tends to focus on negative influencing factors and reactive strategies—such as punishment, isolation, and labeling—positive criminology posits that the influence and function of prosocial factors in promoting offenders’successful reintegration into society should not be neglected. At the same time, it encourages exploration of proactive and positive-oriented crime prevention strategies, aiming to address the limitations of traditional criminological approaches. The study finds that Positive Criminology is a collective term for a conceptual framework composed of various theories and enforcement models that incorporate positive elements. Its key features include: (1) an emphasis on positive experiences and interactions; (2) a focus on desistance and personal transformation; (3) breaking down separation and emphasizing integration across three dimensions—interpersonal relationships, intrapersonal (inner self) growth, and spirituality; and (4) a holistic problem-solving approach, which distinguishes it from traditional frameworks. For example, while restorative justice centers on addressing harm to victims, it also places importance on addressing offenders’needs and promoting their reintegration into society. Though restorative justice emphasizes healing and repair, it also aims at preventing future crime, thereby offering a more comprehensive model of justice that solves problems at both individual and community levels. The theoretical concepts of Positive Criminology have been widely applied to fields such as crime prevention, post-traumatic growth, peacebuilding, community policing, restorative justice, and rehabilitative programs, including 12-step addiction recovery and therapeutic communities. Empirical research has further demonstrated the effectiveness and well-being-promoting potential of Positive Criminology-based approaches. Although empirical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and well-being-oriented aspects of positive criminology, the approach still faces several challenges. These include a relatively weak empirical foundation, an overemphasis on individual change that tends to neglect the influence of structural inequalities and broader social systems, insufficient theoretical rigor, occasional disregard for victims’needs, idealization of high-risk or violent offenders, and limitations in addressing cultural and contextual diversity. |