Families are old organizations. In Asian area, ¡§Domestic Violence Protection Act¡¨ is a new law that shoots up like a new sprout. When tradition meets modern laws; when old emotions and blood relationship meet rational laws, what kind of spark will be generated? And how many new social issues will it bring up? The harms caused by marital violence to a family include physical and mental torture suffered by family members, which might lead to high national and social costs. Owing to the changes in family functions and family structure, marital violence as a controversial issue has been regulated in the legislative body through legislation. However, if there is no limit to the ¡§intervention of laws in domestic disputes¡¨, family problems will be made public just like the ¡§Truman Show¡¨. Without privacy there is no dignity. The universal value of human rights would finally be stripped off. Once the private realm of a family is intervened, it is as if the Pandora¡¦s Box pops open. The basic human rights of family members, such as individual¡¦s privacy, minor children¡¦s right to family harmony, domestic violence victims¡¦ right over body and the right of freedom from fear, and domestic violence offenders¡¦ right to family life, right of migrating freedom, right of personal freedom, and right of property disposal, which has been deprived according to the protective order, as well as human dignity of each family member of the family in dispute and so on will be challenged. Whether the core of family system and family autonomy, or the right to family life, or the systematic protection of family should be precedent to the natural rights of the Constitution? Is it excessively intervened by the Domestic Violence Protection Act? This article discusses the intervention of laws in domestic disputes from the practical and law aspects: What conflicts exist between Domestic Violence Protection Act and domestic violence, and the possibility of reconciliation between them. It is also expected that the implementation of policies is able to protect the basic human rights of all citizens by adhering to the consistent constitutional spirit.

台灣解嚴之後，社會運動團體除了抗爭行動外，漸漸以體制內的修訂法律為主要手段。婦女運動團體也不例外。婦運團體推動的婦女法案，立法過程大部分都需要花很長一段時間和政府機關周旋。家庭暴力防治法則是一個特殊的例子，因為它在立法院裡，從提案到通過只花費一年多的時間，而且相關行政單位並沒有提出相對版本一起競逐。 筆者從歷史制度主義切入，觀察家庭暴力防治法（包含其前身―婚姻暴力防治法）的立法過程。最開始婚姻暴力議題因為鄧如雯殺夫案而受到注目；之後婦女新知基金會接受內政部補助，著手研究婚姻暴力，但研究報告出來後卻完全停擺；半年後現代婦女基金會以高鳳仙法官翻譯的美國模範家庭暴力法為藍本，擬定家庭暴力防治法草案；最後家暴法在立法院內經過數次政黨協商後，三讀通過。這中間的四年，對於婚姻暴力議題的宣導而言，因為受制於新聞熱潮的快速消退，整個政治環境被修憲、選舉、反核四等議題綁住，以及傳統家庭倫理和兩性相處觀念，所以受到的注視和討論有限。法案擬定方面，則因為有大環境有彭婉如案和白曉燕案的刺激，國際社會的風潮，制度上則有趨於健全的政黨協商機制和現代婦女基金會的董事長潘維剛佔有有利的政治地位（即身為執政黨資深立委，政府單位願意與其合作），加上推法策略上刻意隱藏性別問題，因此法案可以快速通過。 本研究發現，整個家暴法的立法過程，因為整個社會環境對法案擬定的刺激，強於政治環境的影響，制度上有政黨協商機制可以暫時調解警察和司法兩機關的權力鬥爭，策略上避開父權體制忌諱的性別意識，因此家暴法才能夠異於其他婦女法案，在立法院內順利審查、快速通過。