家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫法規範的形成與適應—以法院核發的困境與解決出發

Abstract

法律制定，是用來解決社會問題，但社會問題不會因此消失，還會繼續進化、變形。法律的變遷，也代表法律是活的、隨著不同社會問題與文化脈絡而更加融進社會生活之中。臺灣於1998年制定家庭暴力防治法，其中民事保護令真的只是一張紙，如何真正成為保護的工具甚或是利器?\n本研究以文獻分析法做為分析法規範的形成過程與要素、另以次級文本資料及法院裁判分析等研究方法，探究以下問題：\n一、 家庭暴力防治法所定之保護令種類中，能符合被害人聲請保護令的動機之一及最有可能改變相對人施暴行為之保護令--即現行家庭暴力防治法第十四條第一項第十款命相對人接受處遇計畫，法規範在臺灣形成與實踐的情形。\n二、 「家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫之保護令」於核發程序歷經2次修法，自1998年公布實施至2007年修法，期間保護令裁定家庭暴力加害人接受處遇計畫之裁定率低僅3％~5％，法院裁定的困境為何？法規範修法歷程如何提升家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫裁定率？\n相關文獻分析臺灣加害人處遇計畫規範執行情形，其發展過程與美國不同，以美國來說，其加害人處遇計畫模式係於逮捕或起訴加害人的法規制定之前即有，之後1980年代開始，各州法律制定後，加害人處遇計畫需求也越來越增加，然臺灣，係於先有家庭暴力防治法，授權中央衛生主管機關訂定規範之後才有具體執行方式，換言之，臺灣家庭暴力防治法引自美國法規範，但加害人處遇計畫如何實施？則是在法規範形成之後才開始因應發展。發展成效：十年成形期(2007至2017年)從抽象的立法規範，經過對話、試辦具體行動方案、修法、再試辦及評估成效，再修法等過程，逐漸發展出臺灣社會操作的加害人處遇計畫模式。有關命加害人接受處遇計畫裁定率自2005年的4.41%，提升至2011年8.5%。但裁定率自2013年後即停滯，裁定前鑑定制度只解決了部分的困境，顯見尚有其他困境未解，例如：有關法官本身認知加害人處遇計畫成效不彰、裁定前鑑定制度需耗費時間及影響核發時效等。\n研究發現：\n一、對法官有權機關-司法院所編印手冊，著重回應法官核發困境，有助促進法官核發加害人處遇計畫。\n二、法官對加害人特質、加害人處遇計畫評估及處遇模式有基本了解，有助促進核發加害人處遇計畫。\n三、以具法學框架描述的文件書類較易與法官對話與引起共鳴。

Laws are formulated to solve social problems, but social problems will not disappear as a result, and they will continue to evolve and deform. The change of law also means that the law is alive and more integrated into social life with different social issues and cultural contexts. Taiwan`s domestic violence prevention law was enacted in 1998. Is The civil protection order really just a piece of paper ,no power of compulsory execution？How can it really become a tool or even a tool for protection?\nIn this research, the literature analysis method is used as the formation process and elements of the analysis method specification. In addition, the secondary texts and court judgment analysis are used to study the following issues:\nI. Among the types of protection orders stipulated in the Domestic Violence Prevention Law, one of the victims’ motive of claiming protection orders and the protection order which has the greatest possibility of changing the behavior of the opposite party`s -that is, Article 14 (1) of the current Domestic Violence Prevention Law The tenth paragraph orders the opposite party to accept the treatment plan, and the law regulates the formation and practice of conditions in Taiwan.\n2. The "Protection Order for Domestic Violence Victims `Treatment Plan" has undergone two amendments during the issuance process. From 1998, it was promulgated and implemented in 2007. During this period, the protection order ruled that the domestic violence perpetrators` acceptance rate was low. Only 3% to 5%, what is the predicament of the court? How does the process of law regulation improve the ruling rate of the domestic violence victimization plan?\nRelevant literature analyzes the implementation of Taiwan ’s victimizer plan. Its development process is different from that of the United States. For the United States, its model of victimizer plan was established before the establishment of laws to arrest or prosecute the perpetrators, after 1980. Beginning in the 1950s, after the enactment of laws in various states, the demand for victimizer treatment plans has also increased. However, Taiwan has a specific implementation method after the domestic violence prevention law and the central health authority have been authorized to set specifications. In other words, Taiwan ’s domestic violence prevention law is cited US law, but how does the victimizer plan work? After the formation of legal norms, it began to respond to development. Development effect: From the ten-year forming period (2007 to 2017), from the abstract legislative norms, through the process of dialogue, trial of specific action plans, revision of the law, re-testing and evaluation of the effectiveness, re-revision of the law, the harm of social operations in Taiwan has gradually developed. Human treatment plan mode. The ruling rate for the victimizer`s acceptance of the treatment plan increased from 4.41% in 2005 to 8.5% in 2011. However, the ruling rate has been stagnant since 2013. The pre-ruling appraisal system has only partially solved the predicament, and it is clear that there are other unsolved predicaments, such as: the judge`s own recognition of the victimizer treatment plan is not effective, and the pre-rule appraisal system requires Consume time and affect the issuance of time limit.\n\nThe study found:\n1. The manual compiled by the competent authority of the judge, the court of justice, focuses on responding to the dilemma of the judge`s issuance, which helps to promote the judge`s approval of offender treatment plans.\n2. The judge has a basic understanding of the characteristics of the offender, the evaluation of the offender`s treatment plan, and the treatment mode, which will help promote the issuance of the offender`s treatment plan.\n3. Documents and books described in a legal framework are easier to talk to and resonate with judges.