財團法人法律扶助基金會

修復式司法不踩雷：法庭實務指引
—從程序參與權釐清修復式司法的功能、作法與時機

文／蕭逸民（財團法人犯罪被害人保護協會副執行長）

---

近年來，「修復式司法」經常被描繪為更人性、更溫和、甚至更進步的價值追求。這固然有助推廣，卻也形成不必要的期待與壓力，導致兩種常見的誤解：一種是過度理想化，把修復式司法想像成療癒創傷的萬靈丹；另一種則是過度污名化，誤以為是強迫被害人原諒加害人。因此，有必要回到制度本身，理解其程序性質與辦理方法，協助司法人員不踩雷，兼顧當事人權益與審判效能。

一、修復式司法是一項程序參與權

理解修復式司法，必須先認識刑事法庭的主要任務在於論罪與科刑。若案件中另有如損害賠償等問題，通常會透過調解、和解或另循民事程序處理，以增加刑事法庭的審判效能。

相同地，如果遇到與論罪科刑或損害賠償都無關的問題，例如：

• 被害人想知道犯罪發生的原因，想確認加害人是否真心悔過。
• 加害人想向被害人道歉，化解彼此的誤解與衝突。
• 雙方涉及的家庭、社區或職場等多方關係，需要協調處理。

這些問題可能在現行刑事法庭沒有機會處理，但對當事人卻具有重大意義。修復式司法的功能，在於提供一個程序，讓這些問題有機會被安全地處理。因此，建議從「程序參與權」開始理解修復式司法。

依據《犯罪被害人權益保障法》第44條：

「檢察官或法院依犯罪被害人及被告之聲請，轉介適當機關（構）或團體進行修復前，應說明轉介修復之性質，告知相關程序及得行使之權利。 參與修復之犯罪被害人及被告，得不附理由隨時退出程序。」

本文所稱「程序參與權」，是指法律保障當事人在法定要件下，得聲請、知情、參與並退出修復式司法程序的權利；不是當事人對修復結果的請求權，更不是法院對修復協議的背書。檢察官、法官的主要職責是「轉介」，被害人與被告才是決定是否參與或退出程序的權利主體。

放下價值追求的道德和心理壓力，回歸程序參與權的性質，就是操作修復式司法不踩雷的前提。

二、委由專業人員到庭說明或庭外評估

刑事法庭本身是高度權威、時間有限、情緒緊張的場域。開庭時，法官、檢察官出於善意勸說進入修復式司法，也很容易被當事人或社會解讀為強迫原諒或有罪推定。建議的作法是：察覺需求後，委由專業人員到庭說明或進行庭外的開案評估。

依據《犯罪被害人權益保障法》第45條：

「檢察官或法院依被告轉介修復之聲請而詢問犯罪被害人意見時，應注意其可能之情緒反應；必要時，得委由適當之人為之。」

此條文提醒法官、檢察官，詢問修復意願極易引起被害人的情緒反應，可以委由他人處理。實務上，適當的委託對象通常包括觀護人室、犯保協會、修復促進者，或其他受過專業訓練的人員。具體作法參見《法院辦理審判中轉介修復式司法應行注意事項》與《檢察機關辦理偵查中轉介修復式司法應行注意事項》。

地檢署觀護人分享：「檢察官若能在開庭過程中，評估當事人是真的說出有意願，就可以轉給個管員來說明流程細節，不需要檢察官在庭上講得很細膩，檢察官也未必有時間。檢察官需要做的，是在最前用很善意的方式讓當事人知道有一個選擇是這個，那你願不願意去聽聽看這個選擇。」（摘自修復式司法案件轉介標準與成效評估指標之研究，第93頁）

犯保協會也訂有《辦理修復式司法業務實施要點》，接受法院和地檢署委託詢問。而且，犯保地方分會人員經常陪同被害人和家屬出庭，法官、檢察官亦可當庭委請協助，由其在法庭或庭外進行說明，並詢問參與的意願。

簡言之，委由專業人員協助當事人理解制度，協助判斷是否適合進入程序，不但有助促進審判效能，更是操作修復式司法不踩雷的關鍵。

三、雙方有共識，被告肯負責，才是適當時機

修復式司法不是當事人聲請就可以轉介，還有許多先決要件，其中最重要的是：

「審酌聲請人雙方對於案件基礎事實之存在是否爭執；被告是否有承擔行為責任之意思。」
（參《法院注意事項》第5點與《檢察機關注意事項》第8點）

這個要件，源自聯合國《刑事案件採用修復式司法基本原則》第7、8點，提醒時機是否成熟的重點，在於雙方對基礎事實已有相當共識。法官、檢察官應注意，如果被告只願承認輕微的罪名，而被害人或家屬主張嚴重的罪名，也稱不上有共識。如果被告沒有承擔責任的意願，聲請修復也可能是拖延審判的策略。

就像移付調解一樣，修復式司法在偵查階段談不成，可以到刑事審判繼續談，刑事定讞後到民事訴訟也能談，即使入監服刑後只要雙方有意願，還是可以進行。因此，法官、檢察官轉介修復式司法不用急於一時，尤其是在被告否認犯罪的情況下，刑事法庭的優先任務就是調查證據，發現真實。等到雙方有共識，被告肯負責，才是適當時機。

四、不踩雷的法庭實務指引

案例1：未經評估的法庭勸說風險（國中校園殺人案）

在一件高度社會關注的國中校園殺人案件中，被害人父母對一審法院在判決中認定加害人「有悔意」的判斷無法信服，因此在二審時聲請修復式司法，希望親自確認加害人是否真有悔意。另一方面，加害人也在律師協助下聲請修復式司法，但同時上訴否認故意殺人的犯罪事實。受命法官在法庭上勸說雙方參與修復式司法時，詢問被害人父母有無接受各種形式補償的可能性，並以被告日後可以「孝順」他們為例，引發強烈反彈與社會爭議。

【法庭實務指引】

1. 避免在雙方欠缺共識，時機不成熟的情況下，轉介修復式司法。
2. 避免直接詢問被害人或家屬是否接受過度理想化的修復方案。
3. 優先委託專業人員進行開案評估，保持中立，公平對待雙方。

案例2：接受「沒有結果」的結果（酒駕致死案）

有一件酒駕致死案件，被害人家屬滿心想問對方為何酒後開車，雙方也同意進入程序。然而，當一切安排妥當，雙方真正見面會談的那一刻，家屬看著奪走親人生命的加害人，腦袋卻一片空白，一句話都說不出來，程序最後在沉默中結束。

【法庭實務指引】

1. 尊重當事人的程序參與權，也包括尊重其保持沉默的權利。
2. 認同「沒有結果」的結果，不以達成對話或協議為必要。
3. 提供當事人安全參與的程序，就是修復式司法的功能。

案例3：實現正義促成修復的效果（鬥毆致死案）

有一件因酒後鬥毆將多年好友打死的案件，進入修復程序後，被害人的媽媽釐清自己在意的事實與脈絡後，仍然要求重判。法院最終在判決中詳細說明論罪科刑的依據，雙方均未再提起上訴。多年後，加害人出獄開始工作，每月固定匯款賠償。有次颱風天媽媽家的水塔壞了，她竟請加害人來幫忙修復。

【法庭實務指引】

1. 刑事法院實現正義的功能，不是修復式司法可以取代的。
2. 滿足被害人的「真相知情權」，本身就具有修復意義。
3. 公正的刑罰才能讓加害人獲得更生的機會，奠定修復的基礎。

五、結語：讓人安心參與的程序

修復式司法之所以重要，在於提供了一個程序，處理不適合在刑事法庭中處理的情感傷害和關係撕裂。法官、檢察官作為程序指揮者，應謹守中立，委託專業人員評估開案，轉介專業機構進行修復，充分保障參與者的知情、自願、安全、隱私與不利禁止等權利。唯有專注於程序參與權的維護，讓修復式司法成為一個令人安心參與的程序，進而發揮其修復功能。

---

Restorative Justice in Taiwan: A Practical Guide for Courts and Parties

Understanding Its Function, Process, and Proper Timing as a Procedural Participation Right

I-Min Hsiao
Deputy CEO
Association for Victims Support, Taiwan
April 13, 2026

Restorative justice in Taiwan has often been framed as a more humane, compassionate, and progressive ideal. Such framing may be useful for institutional advocacy, but it also creates unrealistic expectations and unnecessary pressure, leading to two common misconceptions. First, some over-idealize it as a therapeutic cure-all for trauma. Second, others unfairly stigmatize it, mistakenly believing it is a system designed to force victims to forgive offenders. For that reason, it is important to return to the legal framework itself and understand how restorative justice actually works in Taiwan.

1. Restorative Justice as a Procedural Participation Right

A useful starting point is the basic function of criminal adjudication. In Taiwan, as in many jurisdictions, the criminal court’s primary role is to determine whether a criminal offense has been established and, if so, what sanction should follow. When a case also involves issues such as financial compensation, those matters are usually addressed through mediation, settlement, or separate civil proceedings so that the criminal court can remain focused on criminal liability and sentencing.

However, what happens when issues arise that are unrelated to sentencing or financial compensation? For example:

• A victim wants to know why the crime happened and whether the offender is truly remorseful.
• An offender wishes to apologize and resolve mutual misunderstandings or conflicts.
• Complex relational dynamics involving families, communities, or workplaces require coordinated resolution.

These issues are often important to the people involved, even if they are not well suited to a criminal courtroom. This is where restorative justice can matter. Its function is to provide a process in which these issues may be addressed in a safer and more structured way. For that reason, restorative justice is best understood first and foremost as a procedural participation right.

This understanding is supported by Article 44 of Taiwan’s Crime Victim Rights Protection Act, which provides that, before a prosecutor or court refers a case to an appropriate institution or organization for restorative justice at the request of the victim and the defendant, they must explain the nature of the referral, inform the parties of the relevant procedures, and explain the rights they may exercise. The same provision further states that participating victims and defendants may withdraw from the process at any time without giving reasons.

In this article, I therefore use the term "procedural participation right" to describe the legally protected right to request, understand, enter, and exit a restorative justice process under statutory conditions. This is not a right to demand a specific restorative outcome, nor does it mean that the court guarantees or substantively endorses any restorative agreement. Prosecutors and judges function primarily as procedural gatekeepers who screen and refer cases. The decision whether to participate or withdraw ultimately belongs to the victim and the defendant.

Once restorative justice is located within this framework, the conversation can shift away from moral pressure and toward procedural safeguards, institutional boundaries, and informed participation.

2. Entrusting Explanation and Assessment to Professionals

One recurring practical difficulty is the courtroom itself. A criminal courtroom is an authoritative, time-constrained, and emotionally tense setting. Even when judges or prosecutors act in good faith, direct encouragement to enter restorative justice during a hearing may be misinterpreted by the parties or the public as forced forgiveness or a presumption of guilt.

For this reason, the more prudent practice is often to identify a possible restorative need in court, but then ask a trained professional either to explain the process in court or, preferably, to conduct an initial assessment outside the courtroom.

This approach is reflected in Article 45 of the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act, which provides that when seeking a victim’s opinion on a defendant’s request for referral to restorative justice, prosecutors or courts must be mindful of the victim’s potential emotional reactions and, where necessary, may entrust the inquiry to appropriate personnel.

The significance of this provision should not be underestimated. In the Taiwanese context, asking about restorative justice can easily trigger strong emotional responses, especially for victims. In practice, such personnel may come from probation offices, the Association for Victims Support, restorative justice facilitation programs, or other professionally trained institutions or organizations. Detailed procedures are outlined in Taiwan's official operating guidelines for courts and prosecutorial offices.

"If a prosecutor senses genuine willingness during a hearing, they can refer the parties to a case manager in the probation office to explain the procedural details. The prosecutor doesn't need to explain the nuances in court—and they rarely have the time. All the prosecutor needs to do is gently inform the parties early on that this option exists and ask if they are willing to hear more about it," said one probation officer from a district prosecutors office. (See MOJ Report, p. 92)

The Association for Victims Support also has internal guidelines for handling these referrals. Association staff often accompany victims and their families to court, and prosecutors or judges can request their assistance right then and there to explain restorative justice and assess their willingness, either inside or outside the courtroom.

In short, entrusting explanation and assessment to trained professionals helps parties understand the system, supports better screening decisions, improves procedural efficiency, and reduces the risk of secondary victimization.

3. Proper Timing: Agreeing on the Basic Facts and Taking Responsibility

Cases should not be referred to restorative justice simply because one party asks for it. Several threshold conditions must be met, the most important being: whether the parties dispute the basic facts of the case, and whether the defendant is willing to take responsibility for the conduct. (See guidelines for courts and prosecutorial offices)

This requirement, reflected in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters, suggests that restorative justice is appropriate only when the parties have reached a sufficient degree of agreement on the basic facts. Judges and prosecutors should therefore proceed with caution. If, for example, the defendant admits only to a less serious offense while the victim or the victim’s family maintains that a more serious offense was committed, there is still no meaningful common ground. Likewise, if the defendant shows no willingness to take responsibility, a request for restorative justice may simply be a tactic to delay the proceedings.

In Taiwan, if restorative justice cannot move forward during the investigation stage, it may still be revisited during the criminal trial, pursued later during civil litigation, or even conducted during imprisonment if both sides remain willing. Judges and prosecutors therefore need not rush. Especially when the defendant denies the offense, the criminal court’s priority remains examining the evidence and establishing the truth. Restorative justice is more appropriate when the parties share sufficient common ground and the defendant is willing to accept responsibility.

4. Practical Guidelines from Real Court Cases

Case 1: The Risks of Courtroom Persuasion Without Prior Assessment (A junior high school homicide case)

In one highly publicized junior high school homicide case, the victim’s parents could not accept the trial court’s conclusion that the offender had shown remorse. They requested restorative justice on appeal because they wanted to assess for themselves whether that remorse was genuine. At the same time, the defendant, through counsel, also requested restorative justice while continuing to deny the factual basis for intentional homicide on appeal. During a hearing, the judge tried to persuade both sides by asking the victim's parents if they would accept the offender caring for them like a son. The parents felt humiliated by the remark, resulting in strong public backlash and controversy.

Practical Guidelines

1. Do not refer cases to restorative justice when the parties still lack sufficient common ground on the basic facts.
2. Avoid proposing overly idealized restorative outcomes during court hearings.
3. Prioritize neutral initial assessments conducted by trained professionals.

Case 2: When “No Outcome” Is Still an Outcome (DUI Fatality Case)

In a fatal DUI case, the victim’s family strongly wanted to ask why the offender had chosen to drive after drinking, and both sides agreed to enter the process. But when the meeting finally occurred, the family member looked at the person responsible for the death and went completely blank. Not a single word came out. The process ended in silence.

Practical Guidelines

1. Respect for procedural participation rights includes respect for the right to remain silent.
2. “No outcome” may itself be a meaningful result; restorative justice should not be judged solely by whether dialogue or agreement takes place.
3. The true value of restorative justice lies in providing a safe environment for the participants to engage at their own pace.

Case 3: When Justice Makes Later Repair Possible (Fatal Brawl Case)

In one case, a long-time friend died after a drunken brawl. During restorative proceedings, the victim’s mother was able to clarify the facts and circumstances that mattered most to her, yet she still wanted a severe sentence. The court later issued a judgment carefully explaining its reasoning on guilt and sentencing, and neither side appealed. Years later, after release from prison, the offender found work and made regular monthly payments in compensation. Once, when a typhoon damaged the the mother’s house, she surprisingly asked the offender to come help repair it.

Practical Guidelines

1. The justice delivered by a criminal court cannot be replaced by restorative justice.
2. Fulfilling a victim's "right to the truth" is, in itself, a profoundly restorative act.
3. Fair and just punishment gives the offender a chance at rehabilitation, laying the groundwork for genuine restoration in the future.

5. Conclusion

Restorative justice matters because it offers a process for addressing the emotional harm and broken relationships that criminal courts are often ill-equipped to handle. Judges and prosecutors, as procedural gatekeepers, should remain neutral, rely on trained professionals for initial assessments where appropriate, refer cases to qualified institutions or facilitators, and protect the parties’ rights to information, voluntary participation, safety, privacy, and protection from adverse consequences if they decline, withdraw, or fail to reach an agreement. Only by safeguarding procedural participation rights can restorative justice serve its intended function in Taiwan.