Following the recent anti-nuclear protests and congestion resulting from protesters blocking thoroughfares, the Ministry of the Interior has announced its intention to collect information on the organizers and repeat offenders to give to prosecutors, with a view to applying for court orders for “preventive detention.” However, it is debatable whether the law allows for people to be detained in this way.
Detention of suspects may only be employed when they are considered likely to abscond, or might destroy, forge or alter evidence, or conspire with a co-offender: It is not a pre-emptive measure to ensure that a crime is not committed and it is certainly not to be employed as a punitive measure. It is for use when certain habitual offenders need to be immediately detained to prevent them causing irreparable harm.
This is why, when the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) was being amended in 1997, Article 101.1 was added to the code, listing the situations under which preventive detention is allowable.
According to this additional clause, prosecutors need only to believe a defendant’s offense is serious and be in possession of facts sufficient to demonstrate that they are likely to recommit the same type of crime, which must be specified in the clause, to apply for a court order to detain that suspect. These specific offenses include arson, sexual assault, larceny, fraud and threat to another’s personal security. In all, the article lists eight offenses.
Article 101.1 was added to ensure that preventive detention is not abused. If the nature of the suspected reoffending does not belong to the eight offenses listed in the article, according to due process of law, the suspect cannot be detained, regardless of what other offense they are suspected of being about to commit.
Therefore, if protesters staging an impromptu “passing by” protest or street demonstration do not resort to violence and limit their protest to a sit-in or a demonstration, they may be subject to an administrative fine for violating the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通安全處罰條例) or the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), but it would be hard to argue that their actions constituted a criminal offense warranting preventive detention.
Whether they can be detained in this way also rests upon whether they are suspected of being about to recommit an identical type of crime. However, it has always been tricky to apply objective standards to predict whether somebody would reoffend, and this leaves the decision open to subjective or arbitrary ruling by a judge, in some cases depending on the identity of the suspect.
In addition, if the court does allow for preventive detention, this is tantamount to prejudgement of guilt, which is a serious violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Ever since it was written into law, the idea of preventive detention has been controversial for being possibly unconstitutional. We must proceed with special caution concerning its use in this particular context.
If we are to deal with protesters guilty of infringing laws of a less serious nature in such a stringent manner and in an increasing number of instances, more people will end up being detained than is right.
Further, any detention can only be for a limited time and therefore only serves as a temporary preventive measure.
If the authorities cannot come up with a way to alleviate the grievances held by the public and the root causes behind these complaints, and can only threaten to lock people up, it could cause dissatisfaction to well up further, eventually coming to a head. If it keeps on raining, the levee’s gonna break.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS