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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS