| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 社會工作學系 === 99 === In 1998, the Legislative Yuan enacted the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, which contains a number of domestic violence protection and control measures, with the protection order system functioning as a core policy. This made Taiwan become the first Asian country with the protection order system.However, its implementation and effectiveness must rely on the authorities concerned to impose protection order mandatory sanctions on those violators, in line with the enforcement of the “crime of violation against protection order.” This measure will prove to be the most declarative and deterrent. .
Thus, this study, through the decision analysis of protection order violations, is to explore and assess how the domestic violence prevention policy is being enforced in Taiwan. As far as research methods and research designs are concerned, the use of Archival Analysis in the qualitative research through the search system of the referee database in the Judicial Yuan was adopted to systematically organize and study the convictions of protection order violations in each court and then developed indicators for the purpose of analysis.
Given that this protection system must closely coordinate the administrative, judicial and other establishments as well as the family to bring out its effectiveness to the full, the indicators of this analysis was divided into three aspects in the first place: the family of the defendant, administrative systems and judicial systems. Besides, this analysis also referred to the (relevant) Justice Statistics on protection order, complete with the convictions of its violation and decision analysis released by the Judicial Yuan and then compared their results to ensure that the overall trend of the enforcement and effectiveness of this protection order will be more specific.
The conclusion of this research consists of five aspects: overall analysis, the respective roles played by the family, administrative and judicial systems and the analysis of particular cases. At the end, suggestions , based on the findings of the research, about the role of the domestic violence control policy played in the family, administrative and judicial systems are presented.
Through the research into the referee analysis of the crime of violation of protection order, the following are found :
First of all, the overall analysis indicated that the number of cases of claiming and issuing civil protection order by district courts tend to rise year by year. Of all the claims, an average of 60 percent are granted and less than 10 percent are guilty of violating the order. However, of all the orders meted out by district courts, most are bans on domestic violence.
Second, in terms of familial factors, the relationship between the involved two parties is mostly that of husband and wife or ex-spouses. The major cause of violence is linked with daily trifles, followed by alcoholism and then retaliatory actions triggered by the implementation of the protection order. Most violations happen between off-office hours and the small hours in the night. Among them, those that occur between 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM account for the largest percentage. As far as violation of the protection order is concerned, the number of unlawful mental violence cases goes far beyond that of physical violence cases. Most of physical violence is done with bare hands, while mental abuse is mostly presented in the form of verbal abuse and harassment.
Third, in terms of administration, among the violation cases, fifty percent are reported to the police by the victims themselves afterwards. However, no evidence of intervention of social work systems has been found in the verdicts/rulings.
Fourth, from judicial viewpoint, a considerably high percentage of perpetrators in these cases, if prosecuted for violation (of the protection law), are declared guilty. Among the convictions, a lot more (perpetrators) are given prison sentences rather than detention orders. Though a high percentage of violation cases are declared guilty, only a small percentage are given prison sentences, most of them less than six months or replaced with a pecker payoff. Bans on violence and harassment are the most common rulings judges give. Prison sentences are meted out in accordance with the degree of (perpetrators’) violation. Reasons for imposing sentences include repeat offenders involving other offenses and wanton violation of the protection order. More than 80 percent of the violation trials are completed in six months, which reduces the physical and mental exhaustion suffered by the victims and perpetrators on account of long-term legal proceedings. However, 60 percent of the perpetrators repeat violation three months after the protection order is issued. This study found that although the victims of domestic violence claim protection orders from the relevant agencies, they should, shortly after the order is issued, work out safety mechanisms with the perpetrators and put them into effect to the letter so that their safety can be ensured.
At the end of this thesis, suggestions, based on the findings of the research, are brought up on the family violence prevention polices from the perspective of family factors, administrations and judicial establishments. Regarding family factors, two suggestions are raised: First, promotion of the Family Violence Prevention Act and the presence of protection orders should be stepped up and pushed forward. In addition, the protection of the individual victims should be intensified as soon as the protection order is issued. On the part of the administrative system, the cyber network between the police and social agencies for coordination and cooperation should be enhanced. Besides, more check-ups and bans should be imposed on the receivers of protection orders and convicted perpetrators. On the part of the judicial establishment, prison sentences for protection order violations should be extended. Second, cognitive education campaigns on the protection order should be staged nationwide. Third, the potential feasibility of transforming domestic violence cases into fixed-style justice should be carefully studied。
|
|---|
