目前居住在台灣的人口，可分爲四大族群：外省人，鶴佬人(Holo)、客家人與原住民。前面三個族群，乃過去四百年來，陸續由中國渡海而來的經濟移民與政治移民。語言上以漢語爲主要語言，文化上以孔、儒爲尊。台灣的原住民族源自於南島語族，與太平洋島嶼上住民一樣，屬馬來玻里尼西亞系(Polynesian-Malaysian)。台灣過往四百年來的統治者，均將原住民視爲統治開發過程中威脅生命財產的危害。因此，統治方法上，除了強權佔領土地，行各種支配與征服手段之外，更以殖民式的法律強行適用於原住民族，以進行漸次且深層的漢化與同化政策。然而漢化政策，始終是一種僅著眼於統治利益，毫不尊重原住民特殊傳統文化的政策。台灣原住民的犯罪問題，可以說一方面由來於擁有優越政治權力的統治者，掌握定義犯罪的權力，因而將有別於主流文化價值的原住民傳統行爲模式，定義爲犯罪行爲；另一方面，則是長久存在於原、漢民族之間文化傳統的差異性與價值觀的矛盾衝突所導致。本文主要分析研究三種原住民最常違犯的犯罪類型，亦即，一、因採集森林出產物而違反「森林法」。二、因狩獵傳統而宰殺野生動物，因而觸犯「野生動物保育法」。三、因狩獵而持有槍枝，因而違反「槍砲彈藥刀械管理條例」。此三種犯罪尤其凸顯出原住民傳統生活模式與主流價值規範之間的衝突性。 近年來，台灣內部雖然已逐漸意識到原住民有別於其他族群的文化傳統，並嘗試從尊重原住民文化特殊性與自主性的觀點，逐步修正既有的法律規範，例如將原住民供作生活工具之用而自製、持有獵槍行爲予以除罪化，改以行政罰方式進行管制。然而，槍砲彈藥刀械管理條例的修正，只是修法的一小步。未來關於司法制度的設計，原住民犯罪行爲之認定，以及對於原住民犯罪人的懲罰模式，是否也必須加以調整，仍是一個值得深思的課題。

”Culture” is common experience shared by an ethic group. It, functioning as non-ruling norm, not only portrays the common personality of this ethic group, but influences their behavior norm in great parts as well. One will act accordingly to his/her expected role standardized by their culture. Also, certain conducts might be legitimate within their ethic concepts. Unfortunately, from different point of view, one who acts accordingly to his cultural norm might not apply to the contemporary social concepts. It is not too much to say that part of the criminality committed by Taiwanese indigenous people is a perturbation of the conflicts between their native culture and Han culture. To the key point, due to the differences of the cultural concept and profound influence by their traditional habitat, the consciousness of abiding the dominant/major culture–and of course its norm–cannot be achieved by these indigenous people. As a result, the ”act/behavior” they commit were not considered as a crime by their own norm. Recently, Taiwanese society has raised the awareness of cultural differences, especially the culture from the aborigines that is so much unique than others. To put it in effort, administration authority has been attempting to admen/revise those concerned legal provisions in accordance with the cultural mutual respect and autonomous awareness. Nevertheless, other than just revising the ”Wildlife Conservation Act” and ”The Act Governing the Control and Prohibition of Gun, Cannon, Ammunition and Knife”, there are so many related issues, such as re-defining crimes that are originated/related to cultural conflict and the different penalty models for those ignorant aborigines, require profoundly discussion among our justice system in the future.