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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS