中文｜EN
Donate Now
Annual Review of the Second Term Prison External Inspection Reports (Q4 2022 – Q3 2023)

Annual Review of the Second Term Prison External Inspection Reports (Q4 2022 – Q3 2023)

Last edited: 2026-09-02

Lin Wei-T'ing (Researcher, Judicial Reform Foundation)

I. Introduction

Members of the second term Prison External Inspection Committees assumed office around November 2022. Having operated for a year and submitted four quarterly inspection reports (Q4 2022 to Q3 2023), JRF has compiled an annual review of these reports. This aims to inform the public about the operation of this system, while offering expectations and prospects for the second and upcoming third terms of the committees.

II. Overview of Reports from the Second Term Prison External Inspection Committees

1. Provision of Information Derived from Inspections

We believe that the factual basis underlying the questions or opinions raised by the inspection committee or individual members must be presented within the inspection report or its appendices; otherwise, the public will find it difficult to comprehend the reports. Currently, most inspection reports and their appendices provide the foundational data upon which members' inquiries or opinions are based. At the beginning of their term, some external inspection committees failed to adequately provide information derived from inspections for public reference, but improvements have since been made, including:

2. Transparency of Inspection Reports

We have always encouraged the enhancement of transparency in external inspection reports. Currently, about half of the inspection reports and their appendices (primarily meeting minutes) make it possible to identify which specific members raised questions or opinions. JRF places special emphasis on whether it is discernible if the focus of an inspection was proposed by members, and whether the inspection report was drafted by members. This is because we expect members to have their own insights regarding inspections and to proactively propose inspection foci; furthermore, drafting inspection reports is inherently the duty of the inspection members and should not be ghostwritten by the correctional institutions. However, in most current inspection reports, it is often unclear whether the inspection focus was proposed by members or arranged on their behalf by the institution. The same applies to the drafting of inspection reports.

Instances where it is currently possible to identify which members proposed some or all of the inspection foci are as follows:

Instances where the members who drafted the inspection reports can be identified are as follows: Ziqiang Minimum-Security Prison External Inspection Report from Q4 2022 onwards, Taoyuan Women's Prison External Inspection Report from Q4 2022 onwards, Sindian Drug Abuser Treatment Center External Inspection Report from Q1 2023 onwards, Dunpin High School External Inspection Report from Q1 2023 onwards, and Taichung Women's Prison External Inspection Report for Q3 2023.

We affirm the aforementioned prison external inspection committees for disclosing the sources of their inspection foci in their reports and appendices, as well as the members responsible for drafting the reports. This facilitates public understanding of the committees' operations. We commend the members who proactively propose inspection foci—hoping also to better understand the reasons behind their concerns—and we also affirm the members who diligently shoulder the responsibility of drafting inspection reports.

3. Interviews with Inmates

At the end of 2022, Taiwan gradually cast off the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic from the previous two years, progressively easing epidemic prevention measures and reclassifying COVID-19 from a Category 5 to a Category 4 statutory communicable disease on May 31, 2023. During the term of the first-term prison external inspection committees, which was almost entirely encompassed by the COVID-19 pandemic, inspection activities were severely restricted. It was difficult to enter security zones or interview inmates, and the primary inspection activities had to be limited to listening to institutional briefings and conducting Q&A sessions with institutional personnel. These restrictions have gradually been lifted in the second term, and we have indeed observed that many committees have conducted on-site inspections in addition to receiving institutional briefings.1 However, since the change of term, 29 out of the 51 prison external inspection committees still show no evidence of having interviewed inmates.2 JRF believes that interviewing inmates is a vital inspection activity that helps committees understand the actual conditions within prisons. We recommend that all inspection committees place greater emphasis on this and utilize it accordingly.

4. Handling of Petitions

Over the past year, a total of 18 prison external inspection committees have received petitions from inmates (including those forwarded by JRF). Upon receiving petitions, most external inspection committees merely listened to the explanations provided by the correctional institutions before closing the cases or handing them over to the institutions for processing. Among them, regarding the petition discussed in the Kaohsiung Women's Prison External Inspection Report for Q2 2023, the petitioner, Lin O-chen, who had been in ongoing correspondence with JRF, was completely unaware that the inspection committee had discussed her petition in that quarter, only learning about it after JRF provided her with the inspection report.
In contrast, inspection committees that handled inmate petitions more actively include:

  • Taipei Prison External Inspection Committee: In accordance with the contents of the petition, they interviewed the petitioner, other relevant inmates, and handling personnel; requested relevant materials concerning the matters stated in the petition; and attempted to retrieve security camera footage (though the footage had exceeded its retention period).
  • Chiayi Prison External Inspection Committee: Conducted an on-site inspection and randomly sampled and interviewed two inmates in Q4 2022 to understand an inmate petition forwarded by JRF.
  • Taiyuan Prison (Taiyuan Vocational Training Center) External Inspection Committee: Conducted an on-site inspection in Q4 2022 to understand an inmate petition forwarded by JRF.
  • Hualien Prison External Inspection Committee: In Q3 2023, an inmate applied for a face-to-face interview with the committee members, and the members went to conduct the interview.
  • Hsin店 Drug Abuser Treatment Center External Inspection Committee: In Q2 2022, although the petitioning inmate subsequently withdrew the petition, the committee still interviewed the original petitioner to understand the related circumstances.
  • Yunlin Prison External Inspection Committee: In Q4 2022 and Q1 2023, to understand the statements made by a petitioner surnamed Yang, they met with the petitioner for two consecutive quarters. In Q2 2023, they resolved to issue a signed reply from committee members to the petitioning inmate. In Q3 2023, to properly help the petitioner understand how the petition was handled, they resolved that committee members would explain it to the petitioner in person.
  • Among them, the Taipei Prison External Inspection Committee adopted various inspection methods to understand the factual basis involved in the petition, which is highly commendable. According to information obtained by JRF through correspondence with inmates at Taipei Prison, the relevant situation did indeed improve after the inspection committee handled the petition. This also demonstrates Taipei Prison's willingness to listen to the inspection committee's suggestions and make improvements, which is equally commendable.
1At present, it is difficult for us to ascertain the inspection activities adopted by the Changhua Detention Center External Inspection Committee in each quarter. The Changhua Detention Center external inspection reports state every quarter that, "In response to the inspection focus of this quarter, this committee conducted an on-site inspection of the institution, covering the administrative and inmate buildings. In addition, this committee interviewed inmates and staff on the same day to understand current implementation status." However, the presentation of "Inspection Content and Handling Status" in the reports completely fails to show what information the inspection committee actually obtained through on-site inspections and interviews. We cannot confirm whether on-site inspections and interviews were indeed conducted every quarter, or whether previous report formats were simply copied and pasted without necessary revisions, causing outdated information to remain persistently in the inspection reports.
2Among the second term prison external inspection committees, those where we currently find no evidence of having interviewed inmates include the external inspection committees of Taoyuan Prison, Pateh Minimum-Security Prison, Taichung Prison, Changhua Prison, Yunlin Second Prison, Chiayi Prison, Tainan Prison, Tainan Second Prison, Mingde Minimum-Security Prison, Kaohsiung Prison, Kaohsiung Second Prison, Kaohsiung Women's Prison, Pingtung Prison, Taitung Prison (formerly Yenwan Skills Training Center), Lyudao Prison, Hualien Prison, Keelung Prison, Penghu Prison, Taipei Detention Center, Miaoli Detention Center, Chiayi Detention Center, Keelung Detention Center, Hualien Detention Center, Pingtung Detention Center, Taichung Drug Abuser Treatment Center, Kaohsiung Drug Abuser Treatment Center, Taitung Drug Abuser Treatment Center (formerly Taitung Prison), Tainan Juvenile Detention House, and Mingyang High School.

We recommend that if prison external inspection committees wish to gain the trust of inmates, they should still reach out to petitioning inmates, understand the factual basis surrounding petitions through various methods, and inform petitioners of the processing results through appropriate means.

III. Recommended Reports

After reading all external inspection reports from Q4 2022 to Q3 2023, we consider that the following external inspection committees adopted diverse inspection methods, and their inspection reports were concrete and rich in content, making them highly recommended reading.

1. Inspection Reports of the Dunpin School External Inspection Committee across Quarters

The quality of the external inspection reports for the second term at Dunpin School has been consistently high across all quarters. In the inspection reports and their appendices, we can discern the underlying care behind the inspection foci designated by members. The inspection methods are diverse, adopting different approaches depending on the circumstances, such as listening to institutional briefings and explanations, requesting data, conducting on-site inspections, and holding interviews. The information obtained through different inspection methods is appropriately presented, allowing the outside world to fully understand the factual basis upon which inspection recommendations are made.

Among them, the one we consider most recommended for reading is the Q1 2023 inspection concerning mobile visitations. To inspect this focus, members personally tested the mobile visitation system with family members to identify areas for improvement and proposed recommendations to make it more user-friendly for inmates' families. Personally trying out specific services together with family members allows inspection information to be obtained from a user-experience perspective, making it a highly commendable inspection method.

2. External Inspection Reports of the Taiyuan Prison (formerly Taiyuan Vocational Training Center) External Inspection Committee for Q1 and Q2 2023

Starting from Q1 2023, the Taiyuan Prison (formerly Taiyuan Vocational Training Center) External Inspection Committee referenced the Mandela Rules (UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners) to examine whether the current status of treatment provided by Taiyuan Prison met human rights standards, demonstrating a clear human rights focus in their inspection priorities. These two quarters of inspections adopted diverse methods—such as listening to institutional briefings and explanations, requesting data, conducting on-site inspections, and holding interviews—according to circumstances. The interviews also paid attention to sampling methods, which should help determine whether the same issue manifests differently across different groups. Information obtained through various inspection methods was appropriately presented, enabling the public to understand the factual basis upon which inspection recommendations were made.

3. External Inspection Report of the Ziqiang Minimum-Security Prison External Inspection Committee for Q2 2023

The inspection focus of the Ziqiang Minimum-Security Prison External Inspection Committee for Q2 2023 was "conducting on-site understanding of the factory environment for inmates' autonomous external work and interviewing inmates." The inspection report shows that the committee interviewed inmates participating in autonomous external work and conducted an environmental visit to the autonomous external work locations. The inspection committee summarized and organized the interview contents and specifically explained the members' observations and recommendations regarding the working environment during the environmental visit.

4. External Inspection Report of the Taichung Women's Prison External Inspection Committee for Q3 2023

The inspection focus of the Taichung Women's Prison External Inspection Committee for Q3 2023 was "autonomous external work by prisoners." The inspection report shows that the committee engaged in inspection activities such as conducting on-site inspections at the institution, collecting and statistically analyzing questionnaire surveys, interviewing operational handlers and prisoners participating in autonomous external work, and understanding and exchanging opinions with relevant institutional personnel. The information obtained from the inspection was appropriately presented, although the specific information obtained from the on-site inspections was somewhat less clear.

5. Portions regarding "Countermeasures against Summer Heat" in the External Inspection Reports of the Taichung Detention Center External Inspection Committee for Q2 and Q3 2023

The inspection focus of the Taichung Detention Center External Inspection Committee for Q2 2023 was "summer cell ventilation, inmate water usage, and countermeasures against summer heat," and this focus was continued in the inspections for Q3 2023. Intense summer heat is one of the longstanding challenges faced by correctional institutions. JRF also wrote to all prison external inspection committees urging them to attach importance to this issue and incorporate countermeasures against summer heat into their inspection foci during the summer season. The Taichung Detention Center External Inspection Committee was one of the few committees that valued JRF's recommendation and incorporated this into its inspection focus in the summer of 2023. In Q2 2023, the Taichung Detention Center provided a detailed report and arranged for the inspection committee to conduct an on-site inspection. From the recommendations made by the inspection committee, we can see that the members observed quite meticulously during the on-site inspection, enabling them to propose various concrete improvement suggestions. In Q3 2023, the Taichung Detention Center also arranged for members to interview eight inmates; the information obtained by members through these interviews was appropriately presented, and the inspection recommendations were likewise concrete.

However, we found that the meeting minutes of the Taichung Detention Center External Inspection Committee were more detailed and richer than the inspection report itself, and the report shows that the relevant inspection activities were primarily arranged by the Taichung Detention Center. We affirm the dedication of the Taichung Detention Center External Inspection Committee members during actual inspections, and we even more strongly affirm Taichung Detention Center's dedication in assisting with external inspection operations.

IV. Reports Needing Improvement

1. Unclear Factual Basis for Questions or Opinions Raised by External Inspection Committees

Although most current inspection reports now enable the public to better understand the factual basis for the questions or opinions raised by inspection committees through descriptions of inspection-derived information or the provision of appendices, some inspection committees still fail to provide appropriate foundational data to this day, leaving the public unable to comprehend the factual basis underlying their inquiries or opinions. Inspection reports with this shortcoming include those from the external inspection committees of Yunlin Second Prison, Mingde Minimum-Security Prison, Kaohsiung Second Prison, Taipei Women's Detention Center, Miaoli Detention Center, Cheng-Cheng High School, Lize High School, and Yilan Prison (excluding Q2 2023). We find it incomprehensible why such basic issues remain uncorrected to this day.

2. Unclear Correlation Between Inspection Foci and Inmates' Rights

In current prison external inspection reports, the vast majority of inspection foci are related to inmates' rights. However, to this day, there remain inspection foci in some inspection reports where we genuinely fail to discern any connection to inmates' rights.

We feel that the relevance of these issues to inmates' rights is relatively low, and we cannot quite understand why members are concerned with these matters.

3. External Inspection Committees Endorsing Human Rights Violations by Correctional Institutions

Even if the first two shortcomings exist, they cause little actual harm. However, if a prison external inspection committee goes beyond poorly written reports and unclear connections between inspection foci and inmates' rights, and directly endorses practices by correctional institutions that violate human rights, this constitutes a very serious problem. This issue appeared in the Lyudao Prison External Inspection Report for Q4 2022. The most prominent and severe instance involved Petition Case 10: "On December 15, due to insult, [the inmate was] ordered to move to another cell wearing only underwear on a cold winter night, and was sprayed with pepper spray against [their] person..." The inspection committee's opinion was: "1. Reviewed according to the chronological sequence of events, it is clear and without impropriety. 2. For special individual cases, the handling process must be thoroughly recorded and video-documented as evidence; procedures must be more rigorous. Although troublesome, it must become a habit, as this protects oneself." Comparing this with the meeting minutes, the reason given for spraying the inmate surnamed Hsieh with pepper spray was: "After the petitioner was moved to Room 10, Building 5, at around 19:16, [the petitioner] continued to make loud noises, shouted, and scolded the on-duty personnel. Despite repeated warnings and failure to comply, [the petitioner] severely disrupted order and peace in the cell block and committed insulting behavior, meeting the statutory requirements for the use of equipment. Therefore, pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Prison Act, a defensive spray was applied to the petitioner's room for 1 second." Generally, the use of equipment should be restricted to exceptional, last-resort circumstances where an inmate is self-harming, harming others, escaping, or severely destabilizing prison security, rather than serving as a punitive measure. According to the meeting minutes, the behavior of the inmate surnamed Hsieh consisted of continuously making loud noises and scolding on-duty personnel inside the cell, with no active violence against others or severe destabilization of prison security at that moment. Spraying pepper spray under such circumstances likely violated the principle of proportionality and ran the risk of constituting extrajudicial punishment.

After this quarterly inspection report was produced, the inmate surnamed Hsieh also conveyed to JRF through family members that they had been sprayed with pepper spray multiple times and inquired about emergency treatment methods when pepper spray gets into the eyes. For this reason, we issue a concerned reminder to prison external inspection committees that inappropriate inspection opinions not only fail to help protect inmates' rights, but may even cause harm to inmates.

V. Conclusion: The Second Term Prison External Inspection Committees Still Have Much Room for Improvement, While Looking Forward to the Third Term

Overall, regarding the provision of information derived from inspections and the degree of transparency, the inspection reports of the second term prison external inspection committees have gradually improved. We look forward to more prison external inspection committees disclosing in their reports the members who drafted them, as well as which member proposed each inspection focus and based on what care or rationale. All of this helps the public understand the initiative of the inspection members.

Additionally, with the lowering of COVID-19 pandemic prevention levels, many committees have conducted on-site inspections in addition to receiving institutional briefings. Unfortunately, however, since the change of term, over half of the inspection committees still show no evidence of having interviewed inmates. The number of petition cases has increased noticeably in the second term; while most inspection committees receiving petitions merely listened to institutional explanations before closing the cases or handing them over to the institutions for processing, we have also seen six prison external inspection committees handle inmate petitions more actively.

Upon reviewing all reports from the second term thus far, we recommend reading the inspection reports of the Dunpin School External Inspection Committee across all quarters, the Taiyuan Prison (formerly Taiyuan Vocational Training Center) External Inspection Committee for Q1 to Q3 2023, the Tsuchiang Minimum-Security Prison External Inspection Committee for Q2 2023, the Taichung Women's Prison External Inspection Committee for Q3 2023, and the Taichung Detention Center External Inspection Committee for Q2 and Q3 2023. We hope more people will see these high-quality reports and give recognition to the members who write them with care.

In contrast to the recommended reports, some prison external inspection committees in the second term still failed to present the factual basis for the questions or opinions they raised in their reports, had inspection foci whose relevance to inmates' rights was unclear, or—even worse—endorsed practices by correctional institutions that violated human rights.

With only about a year remaining in the term of the second term external inspection members, preparations for the selection and appointment of third term members must soon begin. We recommend giving priority to reappointing actively engaged members for the third term. Basic indicators we deem relevant to the submission of inspection reports include: whether they proactively proposed inspection foci, whether they actively engaged in interviewing inmates or listening to their opinions, whether they actively handled petitions, and whether they participated in drafting inspection reports. Members who have performed exceptionally well, besides being prioritized for reappointment, can also be appointed according to their wishes as external inspection members for different prisons. We also suggest that if certain prison inspection committees persistently fail to improve despite shortcomings in their reports, they should be reshuffled to allow more enthusiastic experts and scholars to join. By retaining actively engaged, high-performing members and appointing other enthusiastic experts and scholars as members, the work of prison external inspection can continually improve!

This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.

Back to News