:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:我國少年司法體系執行修復式正義之研究
書刊名:犯罪與刑事司法研究
作者:簡吉照
作者(外文):Jean, Jyi-jaw
出版日期:2010
卷期:14
頁次:頁117-185
主題關鍵詞:修復式正義少年司法體系政策網絡Restorative justiceJuvenile justice systemPolicy network
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(4) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:173
  • 點閱點閱:109
本文旨在瞭解我國刑事司法人員運用修復式正義處理少年事件之實務現況及作法、探究我國刑事司法人員運用修復式正義處理少年事件之網絡關係、瞭解我國刑事司法人員運用修復式正義處理少年事件時有何窒礙難行之處、我國如何將注重人本關懷的修復式正義妥善運用在少年司法體系與預防政策上、以及探討有關少年事件處理在政策、組織、人力、資源、法令等的相關建議。 在研究方法上,作者採深度訪談法。除廣泛蒐集國內、外相關文獻,進行綜整研析歸納,並親自訪談我國執行少年事件處理法之相關刑事司法人員,包括法院系統人員、警察系統人員、少年輔導與矯治系統人員等共21 名。 本文研究發現: 一、法院系統人員之研究發現:(一)現行條文並未具體呈現「修復式正義」之字句,也未明確規定被害人一定要到庭。(二)少年法院以少輔會為溝通聯繫網絡平臺。(三)目前我國對於少年事件的處理還是以少年法庭法官具有實權。(四)社會資源不足與分散,執行人員認知不夠,仍有待積極規劃與整合。(五)相關的配套措施皆會影響執行成效。 二、警察系統人員之研究發現:(一)未有法律正式授權,合法性不足。(二)警察以少輔會為溝通聯繫網絡平臺。(三)警察仍需加強法律與心理輔導的專業性。(四)社會資源不足與分散,執行人員認知不夠,仍有待積極規劃與整合。(五)相關的配套措施皆會影響執行成效。三、少年輔導與矯治系統人員之研究發現:(一)主張對於少年採先行政後司法的處理方式,抱持人性本善的信念。(二)少輔會為社區網絡協調聯繫平臺。(三)目前還是以法院具有實權舉行修復式正義會議。(四)社會資源不足與分散,仍有待積極規劃與整合。(五)相關的配套措施皆會影響執行成效。
This study examined the ways that local law practitioners practice restorative justice; it also sought to establish the difficulties and problems in the process of practicing restorative justice, to consider how restorative justice can be applied in preventive policy and juvenile criminal justice organizations, and to review suggestions on policy, organization, human resources, information and ordinances concerning juvenile crimes. Methodologically, this study used archival analysis within-depth interviews. In addition to examining background published materials, the author interviewed 21 practitioners from juvenile justice related areas in northern Taiwan region, including courtroom personnel, judges from Juvenile & Family Department of Judicial Yuan, judges, prosecutor, investigation officers and probation officers from Juvenile Division, police officers and juvenile behavioral counselors and coaches. Results among court staff suggest: a) Court clerks found restorative justice acceptable, and have seen such negotiations and conferencing proceeded, although, the absence of ‘restorative justice’ in the current ordinances prevents further realization of its future practices, and also allows victims' absence in courtrooms. b) Juvenile court sees Juvenile Guidance Committee as their platform for communication. c) Even though judges are entrusted with the rights in handling juvenile crimes, community restorative boards or other similar institutions are expected to take the role of judges when public ideas of restorative justice mature. d) With limited social resources, in addition to poorly informed practitioners, more carefully planned integration of both is needed in the practice of restorative practice. e) Restorative justice is an idea that is widely accepted in Taiwan, but there are factors that would act as obstacles: our current justice system has not fully caught up with the idea of 'restoration', police officers are not empowered in full, not enough people know of the central tenets of restorative justice, lack of government support, lack of a comprehensive will among institutions and the lack of cooperation from parents and litigants. Results among police suggest: a) There has been wide acceptance of restorative justice among police officers, and likewise practices have been applied, but legitimacy may be lacking if further ordinance amendments are not proceeded with to acknowledge officers powers. b) Police officers see Juvenile Guidance Committee as their platform for communication. c) With multiple roles entrusted to them, police officers work as law executors, care-givers, counselors, educators and protectors at the same time, but their knowledge of law and psychological counseling needs further improvement. d) With limited social resources, in addition to the poorly informed practitioners, more carefully planned integration of both is needed when putting restorative in practice. e) Restorative justice is an idea that is widely accepted in Taiwan, but there are factors that would act as obstacles (similar to court staff). Results in relation to social workers and correction staff suggest: a) they are positive about restorative justice, they argue that administrative efforts should precede any legal measures. They also argue for the importance of having faith in the innate goodness of people. b) Juvenile Guidance Committee should be treated as the platform for coordination amongst communities. c) Personnel in these institutes are equipped with coordination ability in communities but there are not fully informed about legal ordinances. Therefore, restorative conferencing is better entrusted to courtrooms. d) With limited social resources, in addition to the poorly informed practitioners, more carefully planned integration of both is needed when putting restorative in practice. e) Restorative justice is an idea that is widely accepted in Taiwan, but they identify similar ‘obstacle’ factors as court staff.
期刊論文
1.盧映潔(20050500)。犯罪被害人保護在德國法中的發展--以犯罪被害人在刑事訴訟程序中的地位以及「犯罪人與被害人均衡協商暨再復原」制度為探討中心。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,34(3),165-276。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.黃蘭媖(20071200)。追尋犯罪被害人的正義之路:從福利到修復、從控制到重分配。社會政策與社會工作學刊,11(2),35-78。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Yap, Marie B. H.、Devilly, Grant J.(2004)。The Role of Perceived Social Support in Crime Victimization。Clinical Psychology Review,24(1),1-14。  new window
4.謝如媛(20050300)。修復式司法的現狀與未來。月旦法學,118,41-51。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.王光旭(20050600)。政策網絡研究在公共行政領域的核心地位與方法錯位。政策研究學報,5,61-102。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.柯爾納、鄭昆山、盧映潔(20030400)。德國如何在刑事程序中改善被害人的地位--以「行為人與被害人調解制度」為討論重點。軍法專刊,49(4),21-31。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Sabatier, Paul A.(1986)。Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis。Journal of Public Policy,6(1),21-48。  new window
研究報告
1.許春金、陳玉書、黃蘭媖、柯雨瑞、黃明昭、黃曉芬(2004)。警察機關在修復式正義理論中角色扮演之研究。台北:刑事警察局。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.陳珈谷(2002)。論修復式司法(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學法教分處。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.許春金(20060400)。人本犯罪學 : 控制理論與修復式正義。臺北市:許春金出版。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Rhodes, Robert A. W.(1997)。Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability。Open University Press。  new window
3.林鍾沂(1994)。政策分析的理論與實踐。臺北:瑞興圖書。  延伸查詢new window
4.Nakamura, Robert T.、Smallwood, Frank(1980)。The Politics of Policy Implementation。New York:St. Martin's Press。  new window
5.Lincoln, Yvonna S.、Guba, Egon G.(1985)。Naturalistic Inquiry。Sage。  new window
6.Patton, Michael Quinn(1990)。Qualitative evaluation and research method。Sage。  new window
其他
1.王炳煌(2003)。警察機關防制少年事件作為。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.司法院(2008)。中華民國九十六年司法統計年報。  延伸查詢new window
3.行政院研究發展考核委員會。強化政策執行能力之理論建構(POD)。  延伸查詢new window
4.許福生(2006)。台灣地區少年非行狀況與防制策略之探討。  延伸查詢new window
5.黃源致(2004)。政策網絡理論淺談。  延伸查詢new window
6.黎文德(2001)。少年保護事件之協商審理與處遇。  延伸查詢new window
7.鄭昆山(1994)。德國刑法恢復原狀替代草案(AE-WGM)。  延伸查詢new window
8.劉宜君(2000)。我國全民健康保險政策之執行評估:國家機關、政策網絡及財務管控能力之分析。  延伸查詢new window
9.蔡坤湖(2008)。人本修復性司法:一個少年法官的反思。  延伸查詢new window
10.盧映潔譯,Hans-Juergen Kerner 著(2002)。德國刑事程序中犯罪被害人地位之改善--以「加害人與被害人協商制度」為特別的觀察。  延伸查詢new window
11.Bazemore, G. and L. Walgrave.(1999)。Restorative juvenile justice: In search of fundamentals and an outline for systemic reform。  new window
12.Braithwaite, J.(2002)。Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation。  new window
13.Dorne, C. K.(2008)。Restorative Justice in the United States: An Introduction。  new window
14.Johnstone, G.(2002)。Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates。  new window
15.Kickert, W. J. M., E. H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan.(1997)。Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Network。  new window
16.Morris, A. and M. Gabrielle.(1998)。Restorative justice in New Zealand: Family group conferences as a case study。  new window
17.Rhodes, R. A. W.(2006)。Policy Network Analysis。  new window
18.Rodriguez, N.(2005)。Restorative justice, communities, and delinquency: Whom do we reintegrate?。  new window
19.Weitekamp, E. G. M.(2000)。Research on victim-offender mediation: Findings and needs for the future。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE