Over the past few decades, only judges have been the triers of fact and law in Taiwan’s judiciary. Nevertheless, ordinary people are from next year to have the opportunity to be take on that role in criminal cases, a milestone in Taiwan’s history.
The Citizen Judges Act (國民法官法) was passed by the Legislative Yuan on July 22, promulgated by the president on Aug. 12 and is to be implemented on Jan. 1 next year.
Under the act, lay people are to be randomly selected as citizen judges who would participate in trial proceedings and adjudicate cases alongside professional judges in certain felony cases.
The purpose of the citizen judge system is to enhance the transparency of the judiciary, account for the public’s opinion toward the law, promote public confidence in the judiciary, provide the public with a better understanding of the judiciary and honor the ideal of popular sovereignty.
To accommodate a variety of living experiences and values from all walks of life, enrich professional judges’ perspectives of handling cases, allow the public to understand the judicial mechanism and enhance interaction between lay people and legal professionals, panels of three professional judges and six citizen judges are to be formed and entrusted with handling specific criminal cases.
Professional judges and citizen judges are to work as teams, including hearing and deliberating cases, as well as delivering judgements.
Taiwan is a civil law jurisdiction, as opposed to common law jurisdictions that hold jury trials. The citizen judge system is based on Japan’s saiban-in system, which also resembles a lay judge system.
The primary objective of Taiwan’s citizen participation is to open a dialogue between judges and ordinary people in the interest of boosting judicial transparency and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary.
Therefore, professional judges and citizen judges will be encouraged to have more discussions and interactions during deliberations under the new system, while judges are excluded from the fact-finding in jury trials.
The citizen judge system is to some extent dissimilar to the jury system. Under the citizen judge system, lay people and professional judges are the triers of fact and law with respect to not only rendering a guilty or not guilty verdict, but also determining the sentencing after a guilty consensus is reached.
In jury trials, lay people merely have the power to determine whether a defendant is guilty, but have no authority to decide the sentencing. Lay people’s living experiences and values are not incorporated into sentencing decisions in jury trials, whereas ordinary people’s viewpoints and opinions are embedded in deciding the sentencing in a citizen judge system, thoroughly facilitating the public’s participation in criminal cases.
This notwithstanding, the citizen judge system and the jury system do have certain aspects in common.
First, similar to jury trials, citizen judges are randomly selected to participate in a single trial instead of being appointed for a defined period to adjudicate cases.
Second, evidence and files are not submitted along with the indictment, akin to in jury trials, while evidence and dossiers are provided to the court under the lay judge system.
In summary, the citizen judge system is a combination of the lay judge system and the jury system, blending characteristics and advantages of both.
The citizen judge system has been criticized for being less democratic and impartial than the jury system on account of professional judges’ authoritarian attitude toward lay people.
However, there would be twice as many citizen judges as professional judges in each trial, and every judge has one vote in the final deliberation.
Additionally, professional judges will be required to express their opinions and experiences only after citizen judges have conveyed their perspectives and values, to prevent citizen judges from being unduly influenced by the professionals.
It was observed in mock trials that professional judges were affected by citizen judges and adopted their viewpoints, which was perceived as mutual influencing, mitigating suspicions over the effect of the professional judges’ authority, whereas the effect of authority between jurors might not be removed appropriately in the jury trial system without the presence of judges during deliberations.
On the contrary, presiding judges moderately conduct deliberations and adequately eliminate authority biases among citizen judges under the citizen judge system.
Starting from Jan. 1, criminal cases in which the defendant is accused of intentionally committing an offense that caused the death of a person are to be tried with the participation of citizen judges.
In the next stage, from Jan. 1, 2026, trials that involve citizen judges are to be expanded to cases in which the defendant is accused of committing an offense punishable with a minimum imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
However, juvenile criminal cases and cases involving charges defined in the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act (毒品危害防制條例) would not fall into the scope of cases handled by citizen judges.
Taiwanese aged 23 or older and have resided in areas under the jurisdiction of the respective district court for at least four consecutive months are eligible to be citizen judges without certain disqualifications or excuses. In principle, it is a legal duty for Taiwanese to serve as citizen judges.
The authority of citizen judges is the same as that of professional judges, including participating in trial proceedings and final deliberations, examining witnesses, defendants and victims, delivering a verdict and determining the sentencing.
With regard to the verdict, an approval of two-thirds of the panel members is required, including at least one citizen judge and one professional judge. In terms of the sentencing decision, an approval of a majority of panel members is necessary, likewise, including at least one citizen judge and one professional judge.
As for capital punishment, the deliberation threshold is equal to that of the verdict.
Therefore, juries will by no means be deadlocked under the citizen judge system, as it adopts majority rule rather than the unanimous consensus in jury trials.
The citizen judge system is a revolutionary transition in Taiwan’s judiciary, setting a landmark of judicial reform. It is anticipated that the new system would facilitate a mutual understanding among the public and the judiciary, advance the correctness and appropriateness of verdicts, reduce disparity and disagreement between professional judges and lay people, and promote public confidence in the judiciary.
This would work to achieve the ideal of democracy, impartiality, judicial independence and the rule of law.
Wen Chia-Chien is a judge in the Judicial Yuan’s Criminal Department. She is in charge of the Citizen Judges Act.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS