在法務部修復式正義試行方案計畫推動之前，我國並沒有以修復式正義為名的政策方案，然而此概念在現行刑事訴訟制度中，其實可以探得蹤跡，修復式正義之理念與我國刑事政策發展歷程，實有密切的關連性。
本文先簡介刑罰理論之發展歷程，觀察在不同理論基礎下，對於刑罰目的與功能產生的差異，以及被害人地位的變遷。並介紹各國修復式正義方案的實施形態，檢視其實施成效及執行困境。接著探討現行刑事司法程序中具有修復式正義精神的制度，即調解制度、偵查中的緩起訴制度、審判程序中的協商程序、判決後的緩刑制度以及執行階段的假釋制度。再分析我國修復式正義試行方案的特性與執行上的難處，最後就修復式正義在政策面及立法面的發展提出本文建議，以供未來建構符合我國文化的修復式正義方案之參考。
Before the promotion of the Ministry of Justice’s trial scheme for restorative justice, Taiwan did not have any policy plans bearing the name restorative justice. However, traces of this concept can be found in the current criminal litigation system. This idea of restorative justice is closely related to the development of criminal policy in Taiwan.
This paper begins by introducing the history of the development of criminal punishment theories and observing the differences between the purposes and functions of punishments as well as the historical changes to a victim’s status under different theoretical models. The paper also presents how countries have implemented restorative justice schemes and reviews their effectiveness as well as the challenges inherent in the execution of these schemes. This is followed by a review of current criminal justice procedural systems that bear the essence of restorative justice; namely, mediation, deferred prosecution during investigation, plea bargaining in judiciary proceedings, probation after judgment, and the provision of parole during the execution of criminal sentences. Next, the paper analyzes the characteristics and implementation difficulties of Taiwan’s restorative justice trial scheme. Finally, this paper offers policy and legislative suggestions for the development of restorative justice—serving as a reference for the future establishment of restorative justice schemes that conform to Taiwan’s culture.
