從參與案例審理程序、舉行當事人修復式司法會議、進行被告量刑前社會調查的各種資料分析結果中，本文認為被害人參與刑事司法程序至少可分三階段論述。在審理進行階段，被害人可作為證人，提供法庭認定犯罪事實之根據，但被害人家屬的法律角色非常有限，亦非必要。在量刑階段，法庭應先考量犯罪造成損害的通則，排除犯罪損害之不可預見性，然後再考量特殊或例外原則，此時被害人或其家屬陳述、修復式司法結果與被告量刑前社會調查報告可納入量刑評價之材料之一。法庭不能以被害人或其家屬陳述為量刑評價主要或優先考量理由，但可藉此收集更為充足的資訊或材料，增加量刑的正當性。至於假釋階段，收容人的再犯風險評估是最重要的考量，被害人或其家屬陳述或不安情緒，非再犯風險評估的根據，無助於評估的準確性。但被害人或其家屬陳述，可以作為假釋委員會准駁決定後，要求通過假釋申請之收容人，附帶之應遵守事項之根據。本文認為被害人／家屬參與刑事司法程序運動，可能基於對檢察官、司法執行機關的不信任，意圖擴大社會與國家對被害人的責任，並縮小社會與國家對犯罪人犯罪的責任使然。國家若欲使被害人參與量刑程序，應有三作為：被告量刑前社會調查報告、被害人／家屬陳述標準化程序、法制化修復式司法會議結果等配套措施。

This paper examines the dilemma and conflicts associated with the roles of a victim's family in the modern criminal justice system of Taiwan. We draw upon an empirical investigation of a criminal court case which involved the killing of a police officer. The study also bases on its analysis of the results of restorative justice meetings with some of those accused of the crime and the victim's family, and the analysis of associated pre-sentence reports. The paper argues that at the trial phase, victims serve as 'witness' - providing factual information about the crime. However, victims' family members or friends have little or no role at this stage. At the sentencing phase, judges must normally apply general penal principles, but exceptionally may take into account victims' family impact statements, with the outcome of restorative justice meetings, and pre-sentencing reports as part of their sentencing decision-making process. The paper argues that victims' family impact statements should be best used to enhance the understanding of the nature and harm of the crime, rather than weighed as part of a calculus of aggravating or mitigating factors. It further argues that given that the parole decision is essentially a risk-based assessment in which there can be little purpose served by including victims' family statements at the parole phase. However, parole boards could profitably use them in relation to release conditions. In conclusion, it is recommended that courts in respect of certain selected crimes: (1) ensure properly conducted and compulsory pre-sentence reports; (2) establish standardized procedures for the use of impact statements; (3) formally take into account of the outcomes of restorative justice meetings when establishing sentence.