Abstract In order to understand whether the public improves their faith in justice after 15-year reforms, and whether the result of verdict meets the expectations of the public, this research regards the sentences from the Judge as a decision-making to discuss whether there is any difference in the integration models of sentencing factors and seriousness among the role in the Court. The research analyzes the functions of justice from the viewpoints of Integrated Reference Framework for Public Affairs Management (PAM), and anatomizes the phenomena presenting by Society Develop Matrix (SDM) in every development stage. The research adopts the experimental methods of Information Integration Theory (IIT), and divides the subjects into five roles: Judges, Prosecutors, Lawyers, Inmates and the General Public. The research selects the subjects from Kaohsiung, Tainan and Pingtung, and offers the two cases of ¡§Traffic¡¨ and ¡§Waste Disposal¡¨ to acquire the integration modes of ¡§the Damage from Criminal¡¨ and ¡§the Attitudes after committing crimes ¡¨ in the measurement of punishment. Here are the research findings: 1. Individual subject from the five roles mostly uses ¡§Equal-Weight Averaging Model¡¨ to combine the two factors of the damages from committing crimes and the attitudes after committing crimes. 2. The types of case influence sentences and the waste disposal cases are obviously much more serious than the traffic cases. 3. The order of cases has no influence on sentences. 4. There is no significant difference in penalty measurement in traffic court cases among the five roles. However, there are significant variations in waste disposal cases, especially between the attorneys and the general public, while the attorneys expect lighter penalty measurement than the general public. 5. After the justice reformation, there have been slight differences in cognitive models of sentences. Keywords: Public Affairs Management, Information Integration Theory, justice reforms, sentencing

La justice de proximité occupe, depuis plusieurs années, une place centrale dans les tentatives de réforme de la justice.Nonobstant la fréquence de son usage, la notion est dépourvue d'une définition clairement circonscrite par le droit positif et ne dispose pas davantage d'un statut théorique incontestable établi par la doctrine. De ce constat naît une interrogation fondamentale : quel sens donner à la justice de proximité ? Distincte de la proximité de la justice, la justice de proximité doit être appréhendée dans sa double acception pénale et civile. Tandis que la justice pénale de proximité renvoie à un mouvement de diversification du circuit de traitement des infractions de faible et moyenne gravité par la recherche d'une ou plusieurs formes de rapprochement entre la justice et le citoyen, la justice civile de proximité vise, par cette même méthode, à améliorer l'accès à la justice des litiges dont l'enjeu économique est faible ou modéré. Ainsi entendue, la justice de proximité repose sur la mise en oeuvre d'une pluralité d'instruments procéduraux et organisationnels au sein de l'institution judiciaire. Leur examen révèle les ambiguïtés dont ils sont parfois porteurs ainsi que leur manque de lisibilité et de cohérence. Cependant, certains mécanismes correcteurs sont envisageables afin que les imperfections de ces instruments ne compromettent pas irrémédiablement l'intérêt que présente la notion en vue de garantir la confiance des citoyens dans la justice. / The french expression ''justice de proximité" has been holding a specific place within the proposals for justice reforms for many years. Despite its increasing use, the concept is not clearly defined -or understood- in our discipline not even in a theoretical way. Thus, a new interrogation appears : how can we understand the precise meaning of such a concept ? Far from being defined as the "closeness justice", the notion of "justice de proximité" gets a double meaning :a criminal one and a civil one. While the first one puts the stress on the diversity in the way we deal with minor and major offenses- mainly through partnerships between the justice and the citizen- the civil dimension of the community justice concept aims at allowing to go to court all the contentions with low economical consequences. As far as this definition is right, the community justice relies on putting into practice several types of both procedural and organizational tools. A through analysis of the tools previously mentioned demonstrates a Jack of transparency and consistency. Nevertheless, some of them can be useful since they guarantee the citizens' confidence in their own justice.