Empirical Study of the Application of Protection Order of Family Violence and it's Violation Crime：Penghu County as an Example

• Main Authors: LU, HSIN-YI, 呂芯儀
• Other Authors: Cheng, Jui-Lung
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/4dx576

碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 犯罪防治研究所 === 106 === In recent years, more and more domestic violence cases have reported to the official. Relevant news has always appeared on the major media. In that year, "Case of Deng Ruwen who killed her husband" made the general public astonished. Therefore, the whole society began to examine the issue of violence against women. The implementation of the "Domestic Violence Prevention Act" on June 24, 1998 began the protection for the victims of violence. It also enabled the society to face up to the issue of "domestic violence." Since the domestic violence prevention and control law was enacted, many issues related to the legal system or the enforcement level of Protection orders have also begun to be discussed. The purpose of this paper is mainly to discuss the referee's reasons for the crime of violating the order of protection in Penghu county and the suggestions on the Protection order provisions in the domestic violence law. By using Secondary Analysis in quantitative research and adopting the referee search system of the Judicial Court and LawBank, the author of this paper has systematically organized and studied the verdicts of violations of Protection orders, and finally analyzed the background, administrative procedures, and judicial indicators of the case. 　 The results of the study are shown as follows: 1. Overall analysis: The study found that the number of claims and approval orders issued by all courts in the country and the Penghu District Court all over the country have increased every year, indicating that more than 60% of people will receive a Protection order issued by the court. After issuing a Protection order, about 20% of injurers will again violate the Protection order. Lastly, in the portion of the civil Protection order issued, the highest issuance item is Article 14-1 which prohibits domestic violence. 2. Background of the case: Among the two parties, the spouse or former spouse who had lived with them were the most perpetrating offenders the crime and most of the victims were women. The most common cause of violence was revenge for issuing a Protection order, followed by a quarrel and fighting life. There are other issues such as child education, alcoholism, mental problems, money, divorce, affair, and work. From the perspective of the behavior of inflicting violence, it is found that there are no significant differences between the “physical” and “spiritual” forms of violence. Violent behaviors are mostly caused by physical violence (unarmed violence) and mental violence (verbal abuse). 3. Administrative procedures: After reviewing all the judgments, it was discovered that if the victims was alerted at the first time, the police would go to the scene to process and arrest the active offenders, and the proportion of the prosecutors' office for the production of the transcripts was about 40%. In the part of social affairs, only a few judgments showed that the social-political system (social worker) has assistance. 4. Judicial Oriented: First of all, judging from the types of judgments, the proportion of summary judgments is 75%. Second, if there is a case for prosecution, the vast majority will be found guilty. Among them, it is divided into fixed-term imprisonment and criminal detention. According to statistics, it shows that the sentence of imprisonment is 37%, criminal detention is 63%, and the term of imprisonment is mostly concentrated within 6 months. This data shows that although injurers who have violated Protection orders in Penghu county have a high percentage of convicted guilty, the sentences for guilty verdicts are not high, and most of them are based on criminal detention. Third, in the judgment that the defendant violated the Protection order, domestic violence was most frequently violated in violation of the first paragraph, accounting for 60%. Fourth, on the grounds for sentencing, in general, the reasons for judges' sentencing will be determined by the contents of the prosecutors' prosecution, the severity of the infringer's violation of the Protection order, the degree of retribution by the injuring party, and whether the victim is willing to forgive the injurer. Responsibility for reference. In violation of the Protection order conviction, the grounds for sentencing for violation of the Protection order include the following: “recidivism”, “merger with other criminal acts”, “unrepentant”, “unfulfilled filial piety” and “lack of self-control”. In the end, the criminal act of breaching the Protection order was also greatly affected by the time the Protection order was issued. In the six months, nearly 80% of the injurers will commit another crime. Therefore, for the victims who have obtained a Protection order, they need to be reminded of their personal safety, and the subsequent relevant safety plans need to be confirmed. In summary, its recommendations are as follows: 1. Sustain and strengthen the dissemination of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and Protection order 2. Implement the perceptions of the injuring party and the victim on Protection order 3. Strengthen cooperation in safety networks for domestic violence 4. Complementing professional manpower 5. Increase the ninth and tenth protection orders. 6. Aggravating Penalties for Violation of Protection order by Offenders