警察、檢察官、法官對社工認知之探討：以家庭暴力與性侵害案件處理為例

The View of the Police Officer, Prosecutor and Judge on Social Workers in Dealing with Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Cases

10.6171/ntuswr2010.21.01

王珮玲(Pei-Ling Wang)

家庭暴力 ； 性侵害 ； 社會工作 ； 警察 ； 司法系統 ； domestic violence ； sexual assault ； social work ； policeman ； judicial system

臺大社會工作學刊

21期（2010 / 06 / 01）

1 - 53

繁體中文

因應性侵害犯罪防治法及家庭暴力防治法等保護令法令之立法施行，在維護被害人權益的訴求下，社工人員的工作場域必須擴大至警察、檢察及法院系統中。本研究旨在瞭解警察、檢察官及法官與社工接觸的經驗，探討該三類人員對社工專業能力與表現的的認知情形，以及對社工參與案件處理之功能看法及其相關因素。本研究以問卷調查方式詢問承辦家庭暴力及性侵害案件之法官、檢察官及警察，結果發現三體系人員因角色不同、與社工存在不同的關係；對於社工功能的看法，檢察官有顯著較高的評價。社工進入司法系統，所發揮的功能以提升被害人服務品質有最高的評價，其次為提升案件處理品質、最後則是促進司法人員處理案件動力。另亦發現社工司法倡導滲透、改變司法體系文化效果部分已逐漸發酵；而社工是否「好用」，是影響社工功能被肯定的最重要因素。最後根據研究結果，提出深化跨領域知識的建構、建構社工與司法之合作模式、強化社工司法倡導能量、司法體系跨大建置對被害人之服務機制及未來研究方向等五項建議。

In the past decade, the Sexual Assault Prevention Act and Domestic Violence Prevention Act have been implemented in Taiwan. According to these laws, social workers have to enter the police departments, prosecutors' office and courts to advocate for their clients. Therefore, social workers have more interactions with police officers, prosecutors and judges. This paper aimed to examine the three professionals' interactive experiences with social workers, and explore the impacts of social worker's legal advocacy. This study collected opinion from judges, prosecutors and police officers who were in charge of domestic violence and sex assault cases. Results from this study suggest that police officers have great understanding about the role of social workers, and more likely to make requests to social worker's assistance, compared with prosecutors and judges. However, results also suggest that police officers feel more frustrated from cooperation with social workers. Moreover, the results indicate that the relationships with social workers are different among the judge, prosecutors and police officers. Social workers have imbued and change the culture of these three systems gradually. In addition, police officers, prosecutors and judges perceive that providing service for victims in the justice system is the social welfare agency's responsibility, rather than theirs. The regression analysis results indicate that the social worker's professional ability is the most important factor associated with these three professionals' opinions on the impacts of social worker's advocacy. Finally, this study proposes five suggestions for practice fields service programs and future studies.

1. 內政部（2009）。〈家庭暴力案件統計〉。上網日期：2009 年5 月20 日，取自內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會網頁http://dspc.moi.gov.tw/public/Attachment/9299342771.xls
2. 苗栗地方法院檢察署（2009）。〈犯罪被害人保護服務處〉。上網日期：2009年3 月1 日。取自苗栗地方法院檢察署網頁http://www.mlc.moj.gov.tw/mp014.html
3. Allison, J. A.,Wrightsman, L. S.(1993).Rape: The misunderstood crime.Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
4. Barker, R. L.(2003).The social work dictionary.Washington, D.C.:NASW.
5. Bell, M. E.,Goodman, L. A.(2001).Supporting battered women involved with the court system: An evaluation of a law school-based advocacy intervention.Violence Against Women,7(12),1377-1404.
6. Bennett, L.,Goodman, L.,Dutton, M. A.(1999).System obstacles to the criminal prosecution of a battering partner.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,14(7),761-772.
7. Berg-Weger, M.,Schneider, F. D.(1998).Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education.Journal of Social Work Education,34,97-107.
8. Bronstein, L. R.(2003).A model for interdisciplinary collaboration.Social Work,48(3),297-306.
9. Bronstein, L. R.(2002).Index of interdiciplinary collaboration.Social Work Research,26(2),113-126.
10. Burgess, B. W.,Holmstrom, L. L.(1974).Rape trauma syndrome.American Journal of Psychiatry,131,981-999.
11. Buzawa, E. S.,Buzawa, C. G.(2003).Domestic violence: The criminal justice response.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
12. Campbell, R.(2006).Rape survivors' experiences with the legal and medical systems: Do rape victim advocates make a difference?.Violence Against Women,12(1),30-45.
13. Campbell, R.,Raja, S.(2005).The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: Help seeking experiences in military and civilian social systems.Psychology of Women Quarterly,29,97-106.
14. Cohen, D.(ed.)(2001).Advocacy for social justice: A global action and reflection guide.Bloomfield, CT:Kumarian Press.
15. Edleson, J. L.(1993).Advocacy services for battered women.Violence Update,4(4),1-10.
16. Edwards, S. M.(1989).Policing domestic violence: Women, the law and the state.London:Sage Publications.
17. Fast, J. D.(2003).An in-law comes to stay: Examination of interdiciplinary conflict in a school-based health center.Social Work,48(1),45-50.
18. Ferraro, K. J.(1989).Policing woman battering.Social Problems,36(1),61-74.
19. Ford, D. A.(2003).Coercing victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,18(6),669-684.
20. Hart, B.(1993).Battered women and the criminal justice system.American Behavioral Scientist,36,624-638.
21. Homant, R. J.,Kennedy, D. B.(1985).Police perceptions of spouse abuse: A comparison of male and female officers.Journal of Criminal Justice,13(1),29-47.
22. Hoyle, C.(1998).Negotiating domestic violence: Police, criminal justice and victims.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
23. Loseck, D. R.(1991).Changing the boundaries of crime: The battered women's social movement and the definition of wife abuse as criminal activity.Criminal Justice Review,16(2),249-262.
24. Lynch, R. S.,Mitchell, J.(1995).Justice system advocacy: A must for NASW and the social work community.Social Work,40(1),9-12.
25. Madden, R. G.,Wayne, R. H.(2003).Social work and the law: A therapeutic jurisprudence perspective.Social Work,48(3),338-347.
26. Mignon, S. I.,Holemes, W. M.(1995).Police response to mandatory arrest laws.Crime and Delinquency,41(4),430-442.
27. Parker, S. G.(2001).Establishing victim services within a law enforcement agency: The Austin experience.Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.
28. Ptacek, J.(1999).Battered women in the court room: The power of judicial responses.Boston:Northeastern University Press.
29. Renzetti, C. M.(ed.),Edleson, J. L.(ed.),Bergen, R. K.(ed.)(2001).Sourcebook on violence against women.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
30. Roberts, A. R.,Brownell, P.(1999).A century of forensic social work: Bridging the past to the present.Social Work,44(4),359-369.
31. Robinson, A. L.(2006).Reducing repeat victimization among high-risk victims of domestic violence: The benefits of a coordinated community response in Cardiff, Wales.Violence Against Women,12(8),761-788.
32. Robinson, A. L.,Chandek, M. S.(2000).The domestic violence arrest decision: Examining demographic, attitudinal, and situational variables.Crime & Delinquency,46(1),18-37.
33. Schmitt, F. E.,Martin, P. Y.(1999).Unobtrusive mobilization by an institutionalized rape crisis center: All we do comes from victims.Gender & Society,13(3),364-384.
34. Steinman, M.(ed.)(1991).Woman battering: Policy responses.Cincinnati, OH:Anderson Publishing.
35. Sudderth, L. K.(2006).An uneasy alliance: Law enforcement and domestic violence victim advocates in a rural area.Feminist Criminology,1(4),329-353.
36. Walker, L. E. A.(1979).The battered women.New York:Harper & Row.
37. Wang, P. L.(2003).Police adopting a pro-arrest policing in response to domestic violence.Crime and Criminal Justice International,1,148-204.
38. Weisz, A. N.(1999).Legal advocacy for domestic violence survivors: The power of an informative relationship.Families in Society,80(2),138-147.
39. Zweig, J. M.,Burt, M. R.(2006).Predicting case outcomes and women's perceptions of the legal system's response to domestic violence and sexual assault.Criminal Justice Policy Review,17(2),202-233.
40. Zweig, J. M.,Burt, M. R.(2003).Effects of interactions among community agencies on legal system responses to domestic violence and sexual assault in STOP-funded communities.Criminal Justice Policy Review,14(2),249-272.
41. 王珮玲、沈慶鴻(2008)。內政部九十六年委託研究計畫內政部九十六年委託研究計畫,未出版
42. 王燦槐(2005)。性侵害防治中心在司法流程中的角色—減少性侵害被害人減少重複陳述作業之評析。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，1(1)，111-136。
43. 台北市婦女救援社會福利事業基金會編(2001)。司法社工專業訓練工作坊學員手冊。台北:台北市女救援社會福利事業基金會。
44. 杜瑛秋(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東吳大學社會工作學系。
45. 姚淑文(2003)。地方法院法官與書記官訪談整理。法院設置家庭暴力事件聯合服務處方案觀摩暨研討會論文，台北:
46. 柯麗評、王珮玲、張錦麗(2005)。家庭暴力理論政策與實務。台北:巨流。
47. 張錦麗(2004)。法院「家庭暴力事件聯合服務處」方案的倡導歷程分析。朝陽人文社會學刊，2(2)，103-148。
48. 現代婦女基金會(2003)。內政部九十二年委託研究計畫內政部九十二年委託研究計畫,未出版
49. 黃心怡(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台北大學社會工作學系。
50. 黃富源(2000)。警察與女性被害人：警察系統回應的被者學觀察。台北:新迪文化。
51. 劉淑瓊(2007)。教恐龍跳芭蕾？論兒童保護服務之網絡協同合作。兒童及少年福利期刊，11，49-76。
52. 嚴祥鸞(2006)。誰可以決定「誰專業／非專業」。應用心理研究，32，69-74。

1. 潘淑滿、歐紫彤、陳杏容、林雅容、林東龍(2016)。親密關係暴力：臺灣女性之受暴與求助經驗。臺灣社會工作學刊，17，1-42。
2. 吳敏欣(2017)。受暴老人保護令撤回原因探討。社會發展研究學刊，專刊，110-129。
3. (2016)。臺灣社區工作觀點與保護性社會工作發展之初探。社區發展季刊，156，331-346。
4. (2016)。我國婦女遭受親密關係暴力之調查研究。社區發展季刊，156，193-211。
5. (2018)。我國司法詢問員制度之源起及現況。社區發展季刊，162，82-95。
6. (2021)。一位社工在監所場域的矯治性工作經驗。社區發展季刊，174，151-163。
7. (2022)。家庭暴力被害人後追服務困境與因應之研究：以彰化縣為例。靜宜人文社會學報，16(1)，71-96。
8. (2023)。司法社會工作者角色與專業養成－以藥癮戒治場域的經驗為起點。刑事政策與犯罪防治研究專刊，36，39-82。