:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:裁定前鑑定家庭暴力相對人特徵與施暴的心理社會歸因
書刊名:中華輔導學報
作者:陳筱萍 引用關係周煌智吳慈恩黃志中
作者(外文):Chen, Sheau-pingChou, Frank Huang-chihWu, GraceHuang, Joh-jong
出版日期:2004
卷期:16
頁次:頁149-181
主題關鍵詞:裁定前鑑定家庭暴力相對人加害人Presentence identificationDomestic violenceOffender
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(14) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:14
  • 共同引用共同引用:186
  • 點閱點閱:196
本研究的主要目的是:(1) 藉由一種新的制度:家庭暴力相對人(加害人)裁定前鑑定制度描述其特徵,(2)藉由鑑定探討相對人施暴的心理社會歸因。 自民國九十年四月起至九十一年十一月止,由高雄地方法院轉介的家庭暴力相對人128人為研究對象,其中屬於婚姻暴力98人,非婚姻暴力30 人。由研究人員依據內政部家庭暴力防治委員會所制訂「家庭暴力相對人裁定前鑑定手冊」標準作業流程執行裁定前鑑定,並根據鑑定書報告與手冊所附的問卷與危險量表(danger assessment, DA)收集資料並分析。 研究結果發現:相對人以男性118 人(92.2%)、年齡大於40 歲者佔69人(53.9%)、教育程度有71 人(55.4%)為國中或以下、職業有69 人(53.9%)屬於無業或勞工階級者居多數;有超過1/3 具犯罪前科,超過半數的人(60.2%)在暴力行為時曾經有使用酒精或藥物,但達到DSM-IV 的酒精/藥物成癮的精神科診斷標準者並不高。由於加害人對於暴力行為完全承認者僅佔8.8%,因此,危險量表可使用來預測相對人中高再犯危險性,但當得分較低時,則有必要進一步收集其他旁證來印證。相對人和聲請人對婚姻品質的認知不同;相對人大都不認為婚姻有衝突或磨擦的問題,而婚姻衝突處理方式以爭吵和打架較多。相對人對於暴力行為歸責對象以歸究於聲請人較多(32.5%),其次才是雙方皆須負責(26.6%)。對於此次暴力事件可能造成離婚的感受時,聲請人普遍感覺是高興和接受,而相對人大部分是不接受的。 結論:透過裁定前鑑定制度可以瞭解相對人基本特徵與心理社會可能的危險因素,以提供從事預防家庭暴力防治工作及加害人治療處遇者的參考。
The purpose of this project are to: (1) describe the characteristics of presentence identification of domestic offenders; (2) approach the psychosocial cause of domestic violence. 128 subjects were referred from the court which according to the standard procedure of nine specialists by preliminary. 98 are marital violent offenders and 30 are non-marital violent offenders. 118 domestic offenders are male (92.2%) and over 40 years old are 69 (53.9%). 71 subjects’ education level are under junior high or below (55.4%). 69 have no job or are labors (53.9), over 1/3 have previous criminal record, and over half of them are alcohol and drug users but diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence according to DSM-IV criteria was not high. Due to there are only 8.8% domestic offenders complete admitted their violent behaviors, the danger assessment could be used in predicting the re-offended risk. However, when the scores getting lower, it should be collected other evidences to prove. There are prominent difference of marital quality between offenders and victims. Offenders denied they have problems in their marriage. Most offenders thought victims caused the violent behavior. Regarding of the violent behavior may turn into the result of divorce, victims are happy and accepted it, but offenders are unaccepted. Conclusion: It can be understanded offenders’ characteristics and psycho-social risk factors with presentence identification and provide reference of preventing domestic violence and domestic offenders’ treatment plan.
期刊論文
1.Noller, P.、Fitzpatrick, M. A.(1990)。Marital Communication in the Eighties。Journal of Marriage and the Family,52,832-843。  new window
2.McRae, S.(1998)。Familial Abuse: a Multifaceted Problem。Canadian Medical Association Journal,158,867-868。  new window
3.Mckenry, P. C.、Julian, T. W.、Gavazzi, S. M.(1995)。Toward a Biophysical Model of Domestic Violence。Journal of Marriage and the Family,57,307-320。  new window
4.Ting-Toomey, Stella(1983)。An Analysis of Verbal Communication Patterns in High and Low Marital Adjustment Groups。Human Communication Research,9(4),306-319。  new window
5.周月清(19940400)。臺灣受虐婦女社會支持探討之研究。婦女與兩性學刊,5,69-108。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.Goodman, L. A.、Bennett, L.、Dutton, M. A.(2000)。Predicting repeat abuse among arrested batterers: Use of the Danger Assessment Scale in the criminal justice system。Journal of Interpersonal Violence,15(1),63-74。  new window
7.Vest, J. R.、Catlin, T. K.、Chen, J. J.、Brownson, R. C.(2002)。Multistate Analysis of Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violence。American Journal of Preventive Medicine,22,156-164。  new window
8.周煌智(2002)。性侵害犯罪加害人裁前鑑定、家庭暴力相對人審前鑑定與涉案之精神病犯精神鑑定比較。刑事法雜誌,46(5),33-58。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.曹忠瑋(1985)。自我狀態、夫妻溝通型態與婚姻滿意度之相關研究。臺北師專學報,12,1-63。  延伸查詢new window
10.黃玉容(1991)。婚姻暴力問題的初探。社會建設,77,97-103。  延伸查詢new window
11.Baldessarini, R. J.、Finklestein, S.、Arana, G. W.(1983)。The Predictive Power of Diagnostic Tests and the Effect of Prevalence of Illness。Archive of General Psychiatry,40,569-573。  new window
12.Bennett, L. W.、Tolman, R. M.、Rogalski, C. J.、Srinivasaraghavan, J.(1994)。Domestic Abuse by Male Alcohol and Drug Addicts。Violence and Victims,9,359-368。  new window
13.Berns, S. B.、Jacobson, N. S.、Gottman, J. M.(1999)。Demand/ Withdraw Interaction Patterns between Different Types Batterers and Their Spouses。Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,25,337-347。  new window
14.Brinkerhoff, D. B.、White, L. K.(1978)。Marital Satisfaction in an Economically Marginal Population。Journal of Marriage and the Family,40,259-267。  new window
15.Kyriacou, D. N.、Anglin, D.、Taliaferro, E.、Stone, S.、Tubb, T.、Linden, J. A.、Muelleman, R.、Barton, E.、Kraus, J. F.(1999)。Risk Factors for Injury to Women from Domestic Violence Against Women。The New England Journal of Medicine,341,1892-1898。  new window
16.Sullivan, B. F.、Schwebel, A. L.(1995)。Relationship Belief and Expectations of Satisfaction in Marital Relationship: Implications for Family Practitioners。The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,3(4),298-305。  new window
會議論文
1.陳若璋(1988)。婚姻暴力引發因素及被毆打婦女的研究。沒有紀錄。103-112。  延伸查詢new window
2.內政部家庭暴力防治委員會(2001)。家庭暴力加害人處遇裁定及執行狀況。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
3.張惠立(2001)。臺灣臺中地方法院辦理相對人鑑定工作現況說明。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
4.郭麗安、潘才學(2001)。婚姻暴力的脈絡研究-從家暴違法者的眼光。沒有紀錄。120-156。  延伸查詢new window
5.黃志中(2001)。臺灣家庭暴力相對人之鑑定與治療模式。高雄市。  延伸查詢new window
6.黃志中、吳慈恩、高皓雲、姬瑪娜(2000)。家庭暴力防治法對於婚姻暴力續犯者的影響。沒有紀錄。19-20。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.周月清、高鳳仙(1997)。台北市婚姻暴力防治體系之研究--現況及需求之評估研究。臺北:臺北市政府社會局。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.陳高德(2003)。台灣婚姻暴力之男性加害人(碩士論文)。臺北醫學大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.邱秀貞(1987)。夫妻溝通與婚姻滿足之研究--以台中市黎明社區及台中縣國宅社區為例(碩士論文)。東海大學,台中。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳婷蕙(1997)。婚姻暴力中受虐婦女對脫離受虐關係的因應行為之研究(碩士論文)。東海大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.謝銀沙(1992)。已婚婦女個人特質、婚姻溝通與婚姻調適相關之研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
5.湯琇雅(1993)。婚姻暴力中婦女受虐狀況與其因應過程之初探(碩士論文)。東吳大學,臺中市。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.馮燕(1992)。我國目前婚姻暴力狀況。台北:台北市社會局北區婦女福利服務中心。  延伸查詢new window
2.Gelles, R. J.、Cornell, C. P.(1983)。International Perspective on Family Violence。International Perspective on Family Violence。Toronto, Canada:Lexington Books。  new window
3.吳慈恩(1999)。邁向希望的春天:婚姻暴力受虐經驗之分析與防治實踐。高雄市:高雄基督教家庭協談中心。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳若璋(1988)。臺灣婚姻暴力狀況與治療策略之研究。臺北:臺大人口研究中心婦女研究室。  延伸查詢new window
5.李佳燕(1999)。家庭暴力防治法因應措施研討會手冊「序」。台北市。  延伸查詢new window
6.Straus, M.、Gelles, R. J.、Steinmetz, K. L.(1980)。Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family。Garden City, NY:Anchor。  new window
7.孔繁鐘、孔繁錦(2000)。DSM-ΙV精神疾病診斷準則手冊。臺北:合記。  延伸查詢new window
8.Dutton, D. G.(1988)。The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives。Boston, Mass.:Allyn and Bacon, Inc.。  new window
9.周月清(19950000)。婚姻暴力:理論分析與社會工作處置。臺北:巨流。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.Walker, Lenore E.(1979)。The battered woman。Harper & Row。  new window
11.內政部家庭暴力防治委員會(2001)。家庭暴力相對人裁定前鑑定專業人員訓練手冊。家庭暴力相對人裁定前鑑定專業人員訓練手冊。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
12.林明傑(2001)。美加婚姻暴力犯之治療方案與技術暨其危險評估之探討。家庭暴力相對人鑑定專業人員訓練手冊。臺北市。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.張錦麗(2001)。NYCAAP紐約暴力改變協助方案。NYCAAP紐約暴力改變協助方案。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
14.黃志中(2000)。臺灣婚姻暴力之臨床現況與發現。臺灣婚姻暴力之臨床現況與發現。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
15.黃志中、吳慈恩(2001)。家庭暴力的本質與迷思。家庭暴力相對人鑑定專業人員訓練手冊。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
16.Coleman, J. C.(1988)。Intimate Relationships: Marriage and Family。Intimate Relationships: Marriage and Family。New York, NY。  new window
17.Fagan, J. A.、Stewart, D. K.、Stewart, K. W.(1983)。Situational Correlates of Domestic and Extra-Domestic Violence。The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research。Beverly Hills, CA。  new window
18.Rosenbaum, A.、Maiuro, R. D.(1990)。Perpetrators of Spouse Abuse. Treatment of Family Violence: a Sourcebook。Perpetrators of Spouse Abuse. Treatment of Family Violence: a Sourcebook。沒有紀錄。  new window
19.Strong, B.、DeVault, C.(1986)。The Marriage and Family Experience(4th ed.)。New York West Publishing Company。  new window
其他
1.內政部家庭暴力防治委員會(2003)。家庭暴力相對人裁定前鑑定案件統計資料,沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.林慈玲(2001)。家庭暴力相對人鑑定之功能與流程。家庭暴力相對人鑑定專業人員訓練手冊。台北市:內政部家庭暴力防治委員會。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE