회복적 경찰활동(회복적 대화)에 대한 인식 비교 : 담당경찰관 vs 수사관 = Perception Comparison of Restorative Policing (Restorative Dialogue): Police Officers vs. Investigators

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study was conducted to compare the perceptions of restorative policing between police officers and investigators. To this end, in-depth interviews were conducted with police officers and investigators responsible for restorative dialogue programs. The findings of the study are summarized as follows. Firstly, regarding the necessity of restorative policing, both police officers and investigators showed positive responses, but they differed in their reasons. Next, regarding the effectiveness of restorative dialogue in victim recovery, both police officers and investigators showed positive responses, but they also differed in their reasons. Meanwhile, regarding the effectiveness of restorative dialogue in preventing recidivism, both police officers and investigators agreed that restorative dialogue would be more effective in preventing recidivism compared to existing case processing procedures. However, they perceived that the effect would not be significant and would vary depending on the case.
Finally, both police officers and investigators perceived that violent crimes between strangers, domestic violence, violent crimes between acquaintances, property crimes committed by juveniles, violent crimes committed by juveniles, negligent crimes, and abuse crimes excluding child abuse were appropriate to be handled through restorative dialogue. Furthermore, both police officers and investigators perceived that property crimes between strangers (e.g., theft, robbery), property crimes between acquaintances (e.g., fraud, embezzlement), traffic-related crimes, serious violent crimes, sexual crimes, and child abuse crimes were not appropriate to be handled through restorative dialogue. As mentioned above, while there was agreement between police officers and investigators regarding the types of cases appropriate for restorative dialogue, they showed slight differences in their reasoning.
The results of this study present the following policy implications. First, it is necessary to accurately educate the police officers (including investigators) involved in restorative dialogue on its purpose. Second, it is worth considering creating a separate restorative dialogue program for domestic violence, distinct from general restorative dialogue programs. Lastly, sufficient communication with the relevant police officers is needed to expand the scope of cases eligible for restorative dialogue.