Prison Trivia: What on Earth is a 'Open Prison'? Current Status and Issues of Open Prisons in Taiwan

The primary purpose and value of open prisons is to provide a transitional adjustment phase for long-term inmates who are nearing the end of their prison terms, helping them reintegrate into society and ultimately achieving the goal of reducing recidivism.

In conventional prisons, inmates are constantly monitored every day and told when to do what. They gradually grow accustomed to these restrictions while simultaneously longing for freedom. This creates a problem: when inmates regain their freedom, their lives may fall into chaos precisely because there is no one supervising or giving instructions.

Compared to conventional prisons, open prisons adopt low-security custody practices, providing a "transitional phase" so that inmates who have experienced long periods of high-level management do not suddenly plunge back into absolute freedom upon leaving prison. Instead, under supervised yet less restrictive conditions, they gradually grow accustomed to self-management. Allowing inmates to work outside also helps bridge their employment prospects after release. Therefore, transferring inmates to open prisons for labor can be viewed as a transitional measure prior to their parole or completion of sentence.

Although the Agency of Corrections selects inmates with low escape and recidivism risks for open prisons, human behavior cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy, so it must be acknowledged that the possibility of escapes from open prisons still exists. Some might argue that since escapes cannot be 100% prevented, open prisons should not exist in order to maintain public safety.

However, others argue that if the overall benefits of entering an open prison in helping inmates reduce recidivism outweigh the social losses caused by escapes and re-offending, then it is worth adopting. After all, the vast majority of inmates will eventually return to society. If they are locked up until the very end of their sentences and then abruptly thrown back into society without being able to adapt, the resulting situation will be no better.

People can hold their own opinions on whether open prisons should be abolished to prevent escapes. Nevertheless, regarding how to handle escape incidents under the current open prison system, people can also think about it from different perspectives:

1. If an inmate is soon eligible for parole or is nearing the end of their sentence, the incentive and likelihood for them to escape from an open prison decrease.
2. To prevent escapes, more rigorous screening should be applied to select individuals who will not escape or reoffend.
3. Instead of selecting individuals who are believed "absolutely" unlikely to escape or reoffend, select those who might benefit from entering an open prison to help them adapt to self-management, thereby "reducing" their risk of recidivism—even if the possibility of escape or re-offending is not entirely zero.
4. Address escape incidents from a problem-solving perspective. For instance, when an escape occurs in an open prison, investigate why that inmate escaped, and if they reoffended, why they reoffended. Because entering an open prison is not easy, it is a precious opportunity for many inmates, and an escape carries an additional charge of escaping custody. Discovering and addressing the underlying problems explains why some inmates would risk losing this precious opportunity and facing an extra criminal charge just to escape.

Most jobs in open prisons are far more demanding and grueling than those in conventional prisons.

Because Taiwan's open prisons are mostly located in remote areas, agricultural and pastoral work is a common characteristic. However, farming and livestock work is not easy; for example, inmates may have to carry weed-whackers under the scorching sun and weed a vast expanse of farmland all day long. Common jobs in conventional prisons typically involve monotonous manual labor such as folding paper bags or paper lotus flowers, while a small number of inmates might participate in self-run operations with vocational training or higher added value, such as making cookies or soy sauce. Regardless of the type, the labor intensity cannot compare to agricultural and pastoral work.

However, there are indeed a small number of relatively easy jobs in open prisons. Particularly for older inmates who cannot endure high-intensity physical labor, they may be assigned to lower-intensity environmental maintenance tasks. Additionally, some inmates are selected for clerical work, which is considered the cushiest job in open prisons.

Labor in open prisons has both hard and easy aspects. The problem lies in the fact that "there are no clear criteria for job allocation," leaving room for manipulation. Furthermore, while discussing whether work is hard or easy is one thing, the more important question to ask is: "Does the work assigned to inmates actually help bridge their employment prospects after release?" This is because the original purpose of prison-arranged outdoor labor is precisely to assist inmates.

Inmates in open prisons generally do not have to work on weekends and must remain inside locked cells. However, this is not unique to open prisons; in fact, conventional prisons do not make inmates work on weekends either, and they too must remain inside locked cells.

Learning music or arts and crafts is a common "reformative activity" in prisons and is intentionally arranged by them. Prisons believe that activities such as music or arts help refine inmates' dispositions, and performing on stage helps boost their self-confidence. Moreover, if inmates achieve good results in competitions, prisons can use it for political and institutional promotion.

Due to varying resources among prisons across different regions, the reformative activities arranged differ, and inmates cannot simply learn whatever they wish. Although such reformative activities have long been promoted in conventional prisons, they have only appeared in open prisons in recent years.

In open prisons, there are indeed spaces for inmates to live with their family members, allowing spouses to sleep together. This system is practically known as "living with family dependents." It applies not only to spouses, but also to "lineal blood relatives." Although the law allows for family co-residence up to once a month for no more than 7 days each time, in practice, family members usually check in on Friday evening and leave on Sunday afternoon, staying for 3 days and 2 nights.

Actually, the opportunity to live with family is not exclusive to open prison inmates; inmates in conventional prisons who reach the Tier 1 progressive treatment status also have this opportunity.

However, conventional prisons are overcrowded, and the number of Tier 1 inmates inside does not match the number of rooms available for family co-residence. With insufficient space, everyone takes turns, and in practice, they might only live together for 2 to 3 hours or half a day. Furthermore, holiday custodial staffing is inadequate, so conventional prisons in the past have not actively encouraged inmates to apply for family co-residence. Perhaps because of this, family co-residence for Tier 1 inmates is less widely known.

While "living with family dependents" may be perceived as "giving inmates a cushy ride," this system actually performs the vital function of helping inmates reduce recidivism. Research shows that good family support helps lower recidivism rates. The disruption of family ties caused by imprisonment itself can be mitigated through such measures, allowing inmates and their families to gradually re-familiarize themselves with one another. Such measures are particularly crucial for inmates imprisoned far away from home. Because of the long distance, family members cannot visit them frequently; if they can come once a month and stay together for a few days, it is also much more convenient for the family. Whenever possible, such a system should be implemented not only in open prisons but also promoted in conventional prisons.

Currently, the only inmates who can go home to visit their families on national holidays are indeed those in open prisons; inmates in conventional prisons cannot.

Going home to visit family is practically known as a "home visit." According to the Regulations for Home Visits of Open Prison Inmates, the frequency of home visits allowed varies depending on the length of the sentence and the progressive treatment tier, ranging from once every three months to once a month. Currently, inmates cannot go home to visit their families every weekend.

Like "living with family dependents," "home visits" are a treatment measure that helps strengthen family ties. Open prison inmates are permitted home visits because they have low security needs and low risks of escape or recidivism, allowing the prison not to worry too much when they travel home independently. Both open prison inmates and conventional prison inmates have this treatment need. It is recommended that for inmates in conventional prisons who are approaching parole eligibility or release within the next few years, their situations should be evaluated. Those with a low risk of escape or reoffending in serious crimes should also be granted home visits, giving inmates and their long-separated families a chance to readjust to each other, along with a buffer or adjustment period should any issues arise.

While the possibility of lobbying and political influence cannot be completely ruled out, it is more likely an inevitable outcome of the system's design.

Because open prisons feature low security, greater freedom of movement, and more opportunities for family interaction, rumors have long persisted that certain wealthy and influential inmates use political connections to secure entry into open prisons. Furthermore, Control Yuan Investigation Report No. 108 Judicial Investigation 0033 points out that although according to the Implementation Regulations for the Selection of Open Prison Inmates, the Agency of Corrections must rank inmates based on their scores from the "Review Criteria Table for Inmates Participating in Selection" and submit them in order to the selection committee for review, the selection committee also considers non-statutory factors such as the individual's remaining sentence, criminal acts, and other pending cases. This allows them to select certain inmates with lower scores into open prisons, easily inviting public skepticism regarding the fairness of the selection process.

However, out of concern that inmates might escape or reoffend, the Ministry of Justice and the Agency of Corrections initially exclude inmates whom they deem to have a higher potential for escape or recidivism—such as drug offenders, sex offenders, and revoked-parole inmates—from the selection criteria. In addition, they use the scores from the review criteria table to select well-behaved inmates with low custody and recidivism risks. As for wealthy and influential individuals, there is actually little need to worry about them escaping or reoffending, and their conduct is usually fine. Therefore, even without political lobbying, these individuals naturally tend to be selected into open prisons.

In fact, serious offenders are precisely the primary demographic that open prisons were designed to assist. Serious offenders refer to inmates who have committed grave crimes, and grave crimes imply long prison sentences. Inmates who have been incarcerated for a long time need a transitional phase to help them shift from being managed by others to gradually regaining self-management, so that they can adapt well when ultimately regaining true freedom. This is precisely the primary function of open prisons.

However, how many long-term inmates do open prisons actually assist? Looking at the totals for Taiwan's three major open prisons (Mingde, Bade, and Ziqiang) at the end of 2017, approximately 12.8% of open prison inmates were serving sentences of less than three years. Yet, open prisons ought to focus primarily on assisting long-term inmates; those with sentences under three years actually have no need to enter open prisons. Moreover, what is concerning is that inmates serving over 15 years, including those with life sentences (life sentences still carry the possibility of parole), account for only 4.9% of inmates in open prisons, whereas 18.8% of the total prison population consists of inmates serving sentences over 15 years (16.5%) and life imprisonment (2.3%). This data shows that individuals with very long sentences are almost entirely locked up in conventional prisons and rarely enter open prisons.

To enter an open prison, one must meet the provisions of Article 4 of the Enforcement Act of the Outlying Prison Act (referred to as the Open Prisons Act). According to Paragraph 2, Article 4 of the Open Prisons Act, the following individuals are fundamentally barred from entering open prisons:

• Those convicted of the crime of escape.
• Those convicted of offenses under the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act.
• Recidivists, with the exception of those whose previously executed sentences were all determinate sentences of imprisonment for 6 months or less.
• Those whose parole has been revoked due to a crime.
• Those who have other security disposition measures pending execution.
• Those convicted of offenses listed under Paragraph 1, Article 2 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act or domestic violence offenses as defined in Paragraph 2, Article 2 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

Individuals committing these offenses are excluded because the Ministry of Justice deems them to carry a high risk of escape and recidivism, making them unsuited for open prisons. However, these individuals may similarly serve long prison sentences and require a transitional phase to help them get used to self-management. Therefore, a better approach is not to exclude them categorically by crime type, but rather to provide appropriate treatment for them within conventional prisons first, and then evaluate their condition a few years prior to their parole eligibility or release. Those whose risk of escape or reoffending in serious crimes is no longer high should then be allowed to enter open prisons.

Excluding those who are entirely unqualified to apply for open prisons pursuant to Paragraph 2, Article 4 of the Open Prisons Act, remaining applicants must meet the following qualifications pursuant to Paragraph 1, Article 4 of the Open Prisons Act in order to enter an open prison:

• Having served more than 2 months of a sentence of imprisonment.
• Having a remaining sentence of 7 years or less; or a sentence exceeding 7 years but less than 15 years while having progressed to Tier 3 or above in progressive treatment; or a sentence of 15 years or more while having progressed to Tier 2 or above in progressive treatment. Life imprisonment requires progression to Tier 1 in progressive treatment.
• Showing genuine remorse with solid evidence, and possessing physical and mental health suitable for open-air work.

From the perspective that the primary purpose of open prisons is to assist long-term inmates in readjusting to self-management, allowing applications for open prison selection after serving merely over 2 months of a sentence of imprisonment is unreasonable. Yet this issue is rarely noticed. What people discuss more frequently is the meaning of "showing genuine remorse with solid evidence, and possessing physical and mental health suitable for open-air work." Because this standard is ambiguous, the Ministry of Justice further defines it in Article 2 of the Implementation Regulations for the Selection of Open Prison Inmates.

Showing genuine remorse with solid evidence, and possessing physical and mental health suitable for open-air work means that during the period of sentence execution in prison, the inmate is free from any of the following circumstances:

• Inciting mass disturbance or using violence or threats against personnel executing official duties, medical staff, or counseling personnel.
• Committing acts of escape or having factual grounds giving rise to fears of escape.
• Repeatedly engaging in malicious litigation, false accusations, or insulting disciplinary personnel.
• Having disciplinary infractions within the past year or incurring 3 or more disciplinary infractions during the sentence execution period.
• Having previously been selected to serve a sentence in an open prison and transferred back to another prison for execution due to serious disciplinary violations or gross negligence in work.
• Having previously been selected to engage in outside-prison work and having had such outside-prison work suspended due to serious disciplinary violations or gross negligence in work.
• Currently suffering from statutory communicable diseases or mental illnesses.
• Severe physical disability.

Inmates applying for open prisons must not only satisfy various negative and positive requirements stipulated in the Open Prisons Act and its implementation regulations, but they are also ranked in order based on their scores from the "Review Criteria Table for Inmates Participating in Selection," and their files are submitted to the selection committee for review to determine selection and placement. In other words, meeting the selection threshold does not guarantee selection into an open prison. 

Finally, some readers may wonder whether individuals meeting the requirements set forth in Article 2 of the Implementation Regulations for the Selection of Open Prison Inmates can truly be described as "showing genuine remorse with solid evidence."

This is indeed an issue. "Genuine remorse with solid evidence" emphasizes whether an individual feels internal repentance after making a mistake. But how can one infer internal repentance from their outward behavior? Furthermore, does feeling remorse mean an individual will never reoffend? Probably not necessarily. And does lacking remorse mean an individual will definitely reoffend? Not necessarily either.

Consequently, contemporary criminology more commonly examines "recidivism risk"—that is, studying which factors tend to make people reoffend and which factors reduce recidivism. The focus has shifted from probing internal psychological states to behavioral monitoring.

Article 14 of the Open Prisons Act does indeed provide for "sentence reduction" (sentence shortening). Depending on their conduct in serving their sentences, Tier 1 inmates with the best performance can have their prison terms shortened by 16 days for every month served. The reduction provisions are as follows:

• Tier 1 inmates: sentence shortened by 16 days per month.
• Tier 2 inmates: sentence shortened by 12 days per month.
• Tier 3 inmates: sentence shortened by 8 days per month.
• Tier 4 or unclassified inmates: sentence shortened by 4 days per month.