The New Prisons Act and Detention Act: A Major Step Forward for Prison Reform

Following the Legislative Yuan's third reading of the Executive Yuan's proposed amendments to the Detention Act on December 10, the amendments to the Prisons Act passed their third reading today, December 17. This marks a commendable and significant stride toward prison human rights. Guided by the overarching principles of prison transparency, the rule of law, and human rights protection, these two legislative acts attempt to balance practical operational needs while granting a degree of administrative flexibility and room for development. The key highlights of the legislation are outlined below:

1. Incorporation of External Inspection Teams to Enhance Prison Transparency

   Article 7 of the new Prisons Act and Article 5 of the new Detention Act stipulate that correctional facilities shall establish independent external inspection teams. Such independent teams can prevent the abuse of power by enhancing prison transparency, accurately reflect the dilemmas faced by correctional institutions, and urge the government to confront the conditions necessary for the proper functioning of prisons.

2. From Rule of Men to the Rule of Law in Prison Governance

   The current Prisons Act and Detention Act have become severely outdated. Their foundational framework remains rooted in the "special power relationship," governing prisons through a vast array of administrative regulations—a system long criticized for being overly reliant on the rule of men. However, through successive constitutional interpretations by the Judicial Yuan Justices, the relationship between correctional facilities and inmates has gradually returned to the general relationship between the state and its citizens. Under these circumstances, prison governance requires explicit legal authorization. The newly passed legislation incorporates a substantial number of legal principles and authorization provisions. Measures prone to human rights controversies—such as the use of restraints, padded cells, and fixation devices—are not only provided for in terms of basic statutory regulations, but the legislation also mandates the formulation of more explicit enforcement authorization measures. Subsequent legislative operations can commence upon the passage of the bills.

3. Codification of Attorney-Client Visits to Safeguard Inmates' Right of Access to Counsel

   The current Prisons Act contains no provisions regarding attorney visits. While the Detention Act provides for visits by defense counsel, doubts have persisted regarding whether other appointed attorneys and attorneys negotiating representation are covered under attorney-client visit regulations. Article 72 of the new Prisons Act and Article 65 of the new Detention Act explicitly stipulate that defense counsel, appointed attorneys, and attorneys negotiating representation are all eligible for attorney-client visit regulations, with no restrictions on the frequency or duration of visits. Such visits shall be subject only to visual monitoring without audio eavesdropping, and correspondence exchanged during visits shall be inspected rather than read. These amendments strengthen inmates' rights to access legal counsel and are highly commendable.

4. Amending Correspondence Inspection Regulations and Stipulating Judicial Remedy Procedures to Implement the Intent of Constitutional Interpretations

   J.Y. Interpretation No. 756 pointed out that Article 66 of the current Prisons Act permits prison authorities to read all correspondence without distinguishing between types of letters or individual circumstances, resulting in an excessive restriction on the freedom of secret communication. Furthermore, Article 81, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Prisons Act—which required inmates writing articles to obtain approval only if their "themes are accurate and do not impede prison discipline and reputation"—lacked statutory authorization and violated the principle of legal reservation under Article 23 of the Constitution. The new Prisons Act (Article 74) and new Detention Act (Article 66) were amended in response to J.Y. Interpretation No. 756, stipulating that correspondence between inmates and their appointed counsel, defense counsel, or government agencies shall be excluded from inspection, while enumerating various circumstances under which inmates' mail may be read or contents deleted. Regulations regarding inmates submitting articles for publication shall also mutatis mutandis apply the provisions governing ordinary correspondence without imposing additional restrictions.

   Additionally, J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 653, 720, and 755 indicated that detained defendants and convicts subjected to disadvantageous measures by correctional facilities should, under certain conditions, be entitled to seek relief from the courts. Chapters 12 and 13 of the new Prisons Act and Chapter 11 of the new Detention Act establish relevant procedures for inmates' judicial remedies, directly responding to the requirements of these constitutional interpretations.

5. Confronting Inmates' Right to Medical Care: Health Authorities to Assist in Improving Prison Healthcare

   Inadequate medical resources in correctional facilities have long been criticized. However, healthcare is not the specialized domain of correctional agencies, nor is it fair to place excessive blame on them. To address this issue, Article 49 of the new Prisons Act and Article 44 of the new Detention Act stipulate that health authorities shall assist in improving medical conditions within correctional facilities. Paragraph 60 of the Concluding Observations and Recommendations of the 2013 International Review of the Covenants previously noted that "experts also recommend that prison health services be improved and transferred to the responsibility of the Department of Health." The amendment of these articles represents a crucial step in this direction.

6. Incorporation of Individualized Treatment Plans to Strive for Recidivism Reduction

   Everyone hopes that prisons can fulfill their rehabilitative function and reduce the likelihood of inmates reoffending after release. Article 11 of the new Prisons Act explicitly mandates the formulation of individualized treatment plans for inmates, providing the treatment necessary for their reintegration into society in order to reduce recidivism. This provision requires sustained resource allocation by relevant agencies to develop various treatment programs suited for inmates, alongside the staffing of professional treatment providers. This is a long-term goal that prisons must strive for and is of paramount importance to the general public.

A regret regarding this legislative amendment is that during the deliberation process, civil society organizations pointed out issues such as overcrowded correctional facilities—which severely undermine our nation's rehabilitative efficacy, deteriorate inmates' basic living conditions, and impose excessive burdens on staff—and proposed the concept of setting capacity limits for prisons, whereby facilities could refuse to accept additional inmates under certain conditions. However, these recommendations were not adopted.

Furthermore, we urge the executive branch to provide sufficient human and material resources and initiate the revision of crucial enforcement rules to support the benevolent intent of the new laws, ensuring their practical viability. At the same time, we must reiterate that the ultimate purpose of punishment is to enable inmates to return to society as active and positive participants. Therefore, maintaining and encouraging inmates' participation in civil society (such as voting rights in prison), strengthening social interaction skills, rebuilding social relationships, and reducing the difficulties of returning to the labor market remain the directions toward which we must continue to strive.

Issuing Organizations

Covenant Watch
Judicial Reform Foundation
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Taiwan Association for Innocence
Prison Watch