| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 犯罪學研究所 === 104 === This study is to examine the state restorative justice and the Victim-Offender Mediation model through the lens of its attendee’s experience and to form an extensive review on the related studies. It is purposed to gain a better understanding of the role of facilitators, the need of participants, and their experience about the restorative justice system. This study employs in-depth interview method and intends to acquire deeper knowledge of the topic from the eight interviewees that consist of six participants and two facilitators.
The result reveals that the two facilitators both endorse the idea behind the restorative justice and that despite the different approaches they adopt to implement the restorative justice, their ideas and principles stay on track with that of the scholars. During the process of the VOM model, the facilitators have essentially achieved the principles of each stage in spite of some limitation posed by the regulation. While, after probing into the participants’ experience, it is established that most of them do not really get the idea of restorative justice and that some of their perception about the VOM procedure and the role of facilitators contradict with the paradigm of restorative justice.
It also points out that due to the lack of complementary measures and follow-up monitoring, and the facilitators’ misplaced priority in which they prioritize the reaching of agreement rather than the optimal benefit of participants, it makes the participants feel as if the mediation is agreement-oriented and resembles the settlement prescribed by the state civil law(civilian model).
This study recommends that the restorative justice should be distinguished from the settlement while the two different ways of mediation could complement each other and that the facilitator training should be more demanding; The wounds would only heal when facilitators and other related personnel are well-trained. Also, the restorative procedure should take its time and the re-inspection into the follow-up monitoring and complementary measures is required. Lastly, to facilitate the implementation of government policies, restorative justice should be further promoted calling for closer attention of both the public and the prosecutors.
|
|---|
