Internship Reflection | Keep Advocating, and More People Will Gradually Hear: That Is Where Change Begins

Before this internship, I associated JRF mainly with supporting people in wrongful-conviction cases. Working here exposed me to much more of its legislative advocacy, monitoring, and public campaigning, and gave me a broader understanding of what the organization does.

One assignment was to help organize the transcript of JRF's press conference on reform of the hit-and-run offense. Because of that work, I listened to the entire event. The press conference responded to a rushed Executive Yuan proposal, identified weaknesses in the draft, urged the Legislative Yuan to correct them during review, and offered concrete alternatives. A few days later, when I saw news reports about the final amendment, I felt that the advocacy at the press conference had made some difference. It gave me a direct sense of how much effort JRF puts into legislative work-and of how important it is, whether on a bill or a broader social issue, for someone to speak up. Speaking out can create an opportunity for change.

I also joined the Citizen Judges Act court-observation group. Preparing for and observing mock trials gave me a much deeper understanding of the citizen-judge system that was about to take effect and helped me see aspects that still needed improvement. There was a real sense of accomplishment in identifying problems through observation so the new system could become better. Members of other groups also conducted comparative research on public-participation systems in different countries, which showed the care JRF puts into both legislative advocacy and research.

My final internship assignment concerned confidentiality of investigations. The principle protects more than the investigative advantage of prosecutors, police, and investigators; it also protects the reputations of suspects and defendants. Improper disclosure can allow media narratives and trial by public opinion to take shape before a case is resolved. Even if a suspect is ultimately convicted, a public narrative that has already branded the person as monstrous can exert invisible pressure on adjudication. In practice, authorities also invoke "public interest" or the high-profile nature of a case too readily as a reason for disclosure. The consequences are even more serious when a person is acquitted or receives a non-prosecution disposition: reputational harm and social labels may never disappear. Lu Ping-Hung in the Mama Mouth Café case is one example; years later, people still see him and ask whether he was "the murderer." The public may be less sensitive to confidentiality of investigations than to other rights issues, and an ordinary person harmed by an improper disclosure is poorly positioned to challenge an administrative agency, much less litigate. Even obtaining a meaningful correction can be difficult, and successful state-compensation cases based on such violations are rare. In an age of overwhelming information and instantaneous dissemination, this issue deserves much more attention. I found it especially valuable that JRF continues monitoring the problem and assists people seeking state compensation when their rights have been harmed.

Overall, the internship introduced me to a much wider range of JRF's advocacy and legislative work. It also left me with one strong impression: if advocacy continues, more people gradually hear the issue; once more people become conscious of it, the possibility of change begins to emerge.