Restorative Justice in Taiwan | A Practical Guide for Courts and Parties

Understanding Its Function, Process, and Proper Timing as a Procedural Participation Right

By I-Min Hsiao, Deputy CEO, Association for Victims Support, Taiwan
April 13, 2026

Restorative justice in Taiwan has often been framed as a more humane, compassionate, and progressive ideal. Such framing may be useful for institutional advocacy, but it also creates unrealistic expectations and unnecessary pressure, leading to two common misconceptions. First, some over-idealize it as a therapeutic cure-all for trauma. Second, others unfairly stigmatize it, mistakenly believing it is a system designed to force victims to forgive offenders. For that reason, it is important to return to the legal framework itself and understand how restorative justice actually works in Taiwan.

1. Restorative Justice as a Procedural Participation Right

A useful starting point is the basic function of criminal adjudication. In Taiwan, as in many jurisdictions, the criminal court’s primary role is to determine whether a criminal offense has been established and, if so, what sanction should follow. When a case also involves issues such as financial compensation, those matters are usually addressed through mediation, settlement, or separate civil proceedings so that the criminal court can remain focused on criminal liability and sentencing.

However, what happens when issues arise that are unrelated to sentencing or financial compensation? For example:

• A victim wants to know why the crime happened and whether the offender is truly remorseful.
• An offender wishes to apologize and resolve mutual misunderstandings or conflicts.
• Complex relational dynamics involving families, communities, or workplaces require coordinated resolution.

These issues are often important to the people involved, even if they are not well suited to a criminal courtroom. This is where restorative justice can matter. Its function is to provide a process in which these issues may be addressed in a safer and more structured way. For that reason, restorative justice is best understood first and foremost as a procedural participation right.

This understanding is supported by Article 44 of Taiwan’sCrime Victim Rights Protection Act, which provides that, before a prosecutor or court refers a case to an appropriate institution or organization for restorative justice at the request of the victim and the defendant, they must explain the nature of the referral, inform the parties of the relevant procedures, and explain the rights they may exercise. The same provision further states that participating victims and defendants may withdraw from the process at any time without giving reasons.

In this article, I therefore use the term “procedural participation right” to describe the legally protected right to request, understand, enter, and exit a restorative justice process under statutory conditions. This is not a right to demand a specific restorative outcome, nor does it mean that the court guarantees or substantively endorses any restorative agreement. Prosecutors and judges function primarily as procedural gatekeepers who screen and refer cases. The decision whether to participate or withdraw ultimately belongs to the victim and the defendant.

Once restorative justice is located within this framework, the conversation can shift away from moral pressure and toward procedural safeguards, institutional boundaries, and informed participation.

2. Entrusting Explanation and Assessment to Professionals

One recurring practical difficulty is the courtroom itself. A criminal courtroom is an authoritative, time-constrained, and emotionally tense setting. Even when judges or prosecutors act in good faith, direct encouragement to enter restorative justice during a hearing may be misinterpreted by the parties or the public as forced forgiveness or a presumption of guilt.

For this reason, the more prudent practice is often to identify a possible restorative need in court, but then ask a trained professional either to explain the process in court or, preferably, to conduct an initial assessment outside the courtroom.

This approach is reflected in Article 45 of the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act, which provides that when seeking a victim’s opinion on a defendant’s request for referral to restorative justice, prosecutors or courts must be mindful of the victim’s potential emotional reactions and, where necessary, may entrust the inquiry to appropriate personnel.

The significance of this provision should not be underestimated. In the Taiwanese context, asking about restorative justice can easily trigger strong emotional responses, especially for victims. In practice, such personnel may come from probation offices, the Association for Victims Support, restorative justice facilitation programs, or other professionally trained institutions or organizations. Detailed procedures are outlined in Taiwan’s official operating guidelines for courts and prosecutorial offices.

“If a prosecutor senses genuine willingness during a hearing, they can refer the parties to a case manager in the probation office to explain the procedural details. The prosecutor doesn’t need to explain the nuances in court—and they rarely have the time. All the prosecutor needs to do is gently inform the parties early on that this option exists and ask if they are willing to hear more about it,” said one probation officer from a district prosecutors office. (See MOJ Report, p. 92)

The Association for Victims Support also has internal guidelines for handling these referrals. Association staff often accompany victims and their families to court, and prosecutors or judges can request their assistance right then and there to explain restorative justice and assess their willingness, either inside or outside the courtroom.

In short, entrusting explanation and assessment to trained professionals helps parties understand the system, supports better screening decisions, improves procedural efficiency, and reduces the risk of secondary victimization.

3. Proper Timing: Agreeing on the Basic Facts and Taking Responsibility

Cases should not be referred to restorative justice simply because one party asks for it. Several threshold conditions must be met, the most important being: whether the parties dispute the basic facts of the case, and whether the defendant is willing to take responsibility for the conduct. (See guidelines for courts and prosecutorial offices)

This requirement, reflected in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters, suggests that restorative justice is appropriate only when the parties have reached a sufficient degree of agreement on the basic facts. Judges and prosecutors should therefore proceed with caution. If, for example, the defendant admits only to a less serious offense while the victim or the victim’s family maintains that a more serious offense was committed, there is still no meaningful common ground. Likewise, if the defendant shows no willingness to take responsibility, a request for restorative justice may simply be a tactic to delay the proceedings.

In Taiwan, if restorative justice cannot move forward during the investigation stage, it may still be revisited during the criminal trial, pursued later during civil litigation, or even conducted during imprisonment if both sides remain willing. Judges and prosecutors therefore need not rush. Especially when the defendant denies the offense, the criminal court’s priority remains examining the evidence and establishing the truth. Restorative justice is more appropriate when the parties share sufficient common ground and the defendant is willing to accept responsibility.

4. Practical Guidelines from Real Court Cases

Case 1: The Risks of Courtroom Persuasion Without Prior Assessment (A junior high school homicide case)

In one highly publicized junior high school homicide case, the victim’s parents could not accept the trial court’s conclusion that the offender had shown remorse. They requested restorative justice on appeal because they wanted to assess for themselves whether that remorse was genuine. At the same time, the defendant, through counsel, also requested restorative justice while continuing to deny the factual basis for intentional homicide on appeal. During a hearing, the judge tried to persuade both sides by asking the victim’s parents if they would accept the offender caring for them like a son. The parents felt humiliated by the remark, resulting in strong public backlash and controversy.

Practical Guidelines

1. Do not refer cases to restorative justice when the parties still lack sufficient common ground on the basic facts.
2. Avoid proposing overly idealized restorative outcomes during court hearings.
3. Prioritize neutral initial assessments conducted by trained professionals.

Case 2: When “No Outcome” Is Still an Outcome (DUI Fatality Case)

In a fatal DUI case, the victim’s family strongly wanted to ask why the offender had chosen to drive after drinking, and both sides agreed to enter the process. But when the meeting finally occurred, the family member looked at the person responsible for the death and went completely blank. Not a single word came out. The process ended in silence.

Practical Guidelines

1. Respect for procedural participation right includes respect for the right to remain silent.
2. “No outcome” may itself be a meaningful result; restorative justice should not be judged solely by whether dialogue or agreement takes place.
3. The true value of restorative justice lies in providing a safe environment for the participants to engage at their own pace.

Case 3: When Justice Makes Later Repair Possible (Fatal Brawl Case)

In one case, a long-time friend died after a drunken brawl. During restorative proceedings, the victim’s mother was able to clarify the facts and circumstances that mattered most to her, yet she still wanted a severe sentence. The court later issued a judgment carefully explaining its reasoning on guilt and sentencing, and neither side appealed. Years later, after release from prison, the offender found work and made regular monthly payments in compensation. Once, when a typhoon damaged the the mother’s house, she surprisingly asked the offender to come help repair it.

Practical Guidelines

1. The justice delivered by a criminal court cannot be replaced by restorative justice.
2. Fulfilling a victim’s “right to the truth” is, in itself, a profoundly restorative act.
3. Fair and just punishment gives the offender a chance at rehabilitation, laying the groundwork for genuine restoration in the future.

5. Conclusion

Restorative justice matters because it offers a process for addressing the emotional harm and broken relationships that criminal courts are often ill-equipped to handle. Judges and prosecutors, as procedural gatekeepers, should remain neutral, rely on trained professionals for initial assessments where appropriate, refer cases to qualified institutions or facilitators, and protect the parties’ rights to information, voluntary participation, safety, privacy, and protection from adverse consequences if they decline, withdraw, or fail to reach an agreement. Only by safeguarding restorative justice as a procedural participation right can it serve its intended function in Taiwan.

---