本文旨在瞭解我國刑事司法人員運用修復式正義處理少年事件之實務現況及作法、探究我國刑事司法人員運用修復式正義處理少年事件之網絡關係、瞭解我國刑事司法人員運用修復式正義處理少年事件時有何窒礙難行之處、我國如何將注重人本關懷的修復式正義妥善運用在少年司法體系與預防政策上、以及探討有關少年事件處理在政策、組織、人力、資源、法令等的相關議。在研究方法上，作者採深度訪談法。除廣泛蒐集國內、外相關文獻，進行綜整研析歸納，並親自訪談我國執行少年事件處理法之相關刑事司法人員，包括法院系統人員、警察系統人員、少年輔導與矯治系統人員等共21 名。本文研究發現：一、法院系統人員之研究發現：（一）現行條文並未具體呈現「修復式正義」之字句，也未明確規定被害人一定要到庭。（二）少年法院以少輔會為溝通聯繫網絡平臺。（三）目前我國對於少年事件的處理還是以少年法庭法官具有實權。（四）社會資源不足與分散，執行人員認知不夠，仍有待積極規劃與整合。（五）相關的配套措施皆會影響執行成效。二、警察系統人員之研究發現：（一）未有法律正式授權，合法性不足。（二）警察以少輔會為溝通聯繫網絡平臺。（三）警察仍需加強法律與心理輔導的專業性。（四）社會資源不足與分散，執行人員認知不夠，仍有待積極規劃與整合。（五）相關的配套措施皆會影響執行成效。三、少年輔導與矯治系統人員之研究發現：（一）主張對於少年採先行政後司法的處理方式，抱持人性本善的信念。（二）少輔會為社區網絡協調聯繫平臺。（三）目前還是以法院具有實權舉行修復式正義會議。（四）社會資源不足與分散，仍有待積極規劃與整合。（五）相關的配套措施皆會影響執行成效。

This study examined the ways that local law practitioners practice restorative justice; it also sought to establish the difficulties and problems in the process of practicing restorative justice, to consider how restorative justice can be applied in preventive policy and juvenile criminal justice organizations, and to review suggestions on policy, organization, human resources, information and ordinances Results among police suggest: a) There has been wide acceptance of restorative justice among police officers, and likewise practices have been applied, but
legitimacy may be lacking if further ordinance amendments are not proceeded with to acknowledge officers powers. b) Police officers see Juvenile Guidance Committee as their platform for communication. c) With multiple roles entrusted to them, police officers work as law executors, care-givers, counselors, educators and protectors at the same time, but their knowledge of law and psychological counseling needs further improvement. d) With limited social resources, in addition to the poorly
informed practitioners, more carefully planned integration of both is needed when putting restorative in practice. e) Restorative justice is an idea that is widely accepted in Taiwan, but there are factors that would act as obstacles (similar to court staff).Results in relation to social workers and correction staff suggest: a) they are positive about restorative justice, they argue that administrative efforts should
precede any legal measures. They also argue for the importance of having faith in the innate goodness of people. b) Juvenile Guidance Committee should be treated as the platform for coordination amongst communities. c) Personnel in these institutes are equipped with coordination ability in communities but there are not fully informed about legal ordinances. Therefore, restorative conferencing is better entrusted to courtrooms. d) With limited social resources, in addition to the poorly informed practitioners, more carefully planned integration of both is needed when
putting restorative in practice. e) Restorative justice is an idea that is widely accepted in Taiwan, but they identify similar ‘obstacle’ factors as court staff.concerning juvenile crimes. Methodologically, this study used archival analysis with in-depth interviews. In addition to examining background published materials, the author interviewed 21 practitioners from juvenile justice related areas in northern Taiwan region, including courtroom personnel, judges from Juvenile & Family
Department of Judicial Yuan, judges, prosecutor, investigation officers and probation officers from Juvenile Division, police officers and juvenile behavioral counselors and coaches. Results among court staff suggest: a) Court clerks found restorative justice acceptable, and have seen such negotiations and conferencing proceeded,although, the absence of ‘restorative justice’ in the current ordinances prevents further realization of its future practices, and also allows victims’ absence in
courtrooms. b) Juvenile court sees Juvenile Guidance Committee as their platform for communication. c) Even though judges are entrusted with the rights in handling juvenile crimes, community restorative boards or other similar institutions are expected to take the role of judges when public ideas of restorative justice mature. d)With limited social resources, in addition to poorly informed practitioners, more carefully planned integration of both is needed in the practice of restorative practice.
e) Restorative justice is an idea that is widely accepted in Taiwan, but there are factors that would act as obstacles: our current justice system has not fully caught up with the idea of ‘restoration’, police officers are not empowered in full, not enough people know of the central tenets of restorative justice, lack of government support,lack of acomprehensive will among institutions and the lack of cooperation from parents and litigants.