The #MeToo movement in Taiwan has triggered a “chain reaction.” It seems that many people have been afraid to press charges of sexual harassment because they are worried about putting themselves in the firing line. This leads to the question: Does the criminal justice system in Taiwan protect victims?
Important legal distinctions exist. Crimes of sexual assault — such as forced sexual intercourse or aggravated forced sexual intercourse — are prosecuted according to the Criminal Code, while sexual harassment cases are dealt with by an administrative penalty, such as a fine. The distinction seems clear, but there are complicated distinctions.
Article 20 of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act (性騷擾防治法) says that “a person who sexually harasses another person shall be fined not less than NT$10,000, but not more than NT$100,000 by the municipal and county (city) competent authorities where the person sets his or her domicile.”
A person has a year to report a harassment case, although Article 7 says: “The organizations, troops, schools, institutions or employers should prevent incidents of sexual harassment as well as immediately take effective corrective measures when becoming aware of the occurrence of sexual harassment.”
However, Article 25 stipulates that “when a person kisses, hugs or touches the bottom, breast or other physical private parts of the other person when the latter one cannot quickly respond or resist: this person shall be imprisoned for a definite term of less than two years, do forced labor service under detention, or separately or jointly be fined.”
A criminal act of sexual harassment requires intent. Often, an offender might claim that their actions were just a joke or a display of friendship.
Moreover, there is often an unequal power relationship between the offender and the victim, so the victim is unlikely to report the case immediately.
Criminal prosecutions are based on the principle of “no trial without a complaint” and there is a six-month limit on reporting incidents, which might have expired when the person affected has the courage to report it.
Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) says that “in a case chargeable only upon a complaint, the complaint must be filed within six months from the day a person entitled to complain was aware of the identity of the offender.”
However, as there is no provision for the six-month limit to be extended in a sexual harassment case, there is little doubt that their rights are being infringed.
Although a focus exists on handling sexual harassment cases, the possibility of a case of “compulsory indecency” arising cannot be ignored.
Article 224 of the Criminal Code says that “a person who commits an obscene act against a male or female against their will through the use of violence, threats, intimidation, or hypnosis shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than six months, but not more than five years.”
Such a crime is not based on the principle of “no trial without complaint,” and the limitation of prosecution is 20 years.
In a case of compulsory indecency, the victim faces a stricter set of procedures, althought the Code of Criminal Procedure has improved procedural protections in the past few years.
Still, as Constitutional Interpretation No. 789 emphasizes, to maintain a fair trial, defendants should not be convicted solely on the basis of a statement to police — there must be additional evidence.
Striking a balance between finding the truth, protecting the rights of defendants and protecting the victim will always be a thorny issue in criminal justice.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor at Aletheia University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS