During a child's most helpless years, silence after experiencing harm serves as a form of self-protection. However, under legal provisions, this silence becomes a timer for the perpetrator to escape punishment. This traumatic reality—where victims "take an average of 22 years to speak out"—and the cruel gap between it and the strict countdown of the "statute of limitations" represent the most unjust systemic abyss in child sexual assault cases. This lecture will take this contradiction as a starting point to lead the audience in a deep exploration of why this limitation system, originally designed to maintain legal stability, has instead become an invisible shackle trapping survivors in their pursuit of justice in modern legal practice.

Tracing back the design of the statute of limitations under the Criminal Code, the spirit of "keeping rights from falling asleep" sets a prosecution deadline of 10 or 20 years for crimes. Yet in today's judicial arena, those affected by the statute of limitations are often not victims who abandoned their rights out of laziness, but rather children who were threatened by positions of authority, dissociated due to trauma, or had not even established a concept of sexual autonomy at a young age. Examples include the gymnastics coach case, the artist case, and countless campus predator teacher cases, where victims only dare to step forward after reaching adulthood, achieving financial independence, and growing psychologically stronger, only to be labeled with "statute of limitations expired" the moment they step into the court. This results in judges having to issue a non-prosecution disposition even when the evidence against the perpetrator is conclusive, causing justice to vanish instantly under the ticking second hand of the law.

We will discuss why the law cannot directly "stop the timer" when facing special crimes such as child sexual assault; we will also touch upon what the "core of the right to sue" actually is, and why current legal provisions constitute unconstitutional under-protection for children. When the legal countdown has clearly detached from the scientific realities of trauma-informed care, how should we within the social safety net see through the loopholes in the system, and how should the legislature respond to the MeToo wave to promote effective key reforms.

Speaker

Ts'ai Shang-ch'ien Chairperson of Taiwan Kuang-Huan Association, Attorney-at-Law

Speaker

Lin Jui-hsüan Social Worker at All-Heart Trauma Recovery Center, Child Rights and Welfare Association
 

• Time: 08/01 (Sat.) 14:00-16:00
• Location: Taichung Office, Judicial Reform Foundation
  10F-2, No. 4-33, Sec. 1, Shuangshi Rd., East Dist., Taichung City
  In-person attendance capped at 30 people; overflow will be added to the waitlist

Register to Attend

Both social workers and legal professionals are trying to "protect people." Why do their dialogues get increasingly stuck, or even lead to mutual frustration?

In recent discussions surrounding the social worker case involving child Kai-kai, we saw many well-intentioned attempts, but also gradually surfaced a problem: what gets stuck is often not just terminology, but a completely different set of underlying understandings and professional logics between each other.

From the perspectives of law and sociology, the courtroom is not merely a place for "equal reasoning," but a highly institutionalized decision-making arena. Who may speak, how they speak, which experiences can be translated into "evidence," and which language is deemed to have "no legal significance" are actually shaped by a set of rules. Under such a framework, the core function of the court is adjudication rather than the understanding of diverse meanings. Therefore, when a social worker's practical experience enters the courtroom, it often must be translated into a form recognizable by law. How are nuanced and dynamic intervention contexts redefined and interpreted?

And when dialogue leaves the courtroom—

In public discourse, policy debates, and even social media, existing rules of speech are diverse, allowing different professions to be seen without having to be completely translated into a single language. At the same time, however, these arenas have their respective limitations and power dynamics—such as the simplification of public opinion, the amplification of emotions, or biases in agenda-setting, which may also turn these diverse dialogues into another form of incomprehensibility.

We cannot help but wonder—might the real problem not just be "how to translate professional jargon into plain language," but whether, across different arenas, we consciously perceive the reasons behind why both parties fail to understand each other? Have you recently tried to talk with a social worker/legal professional, but felt misunderstood? Have you tried to understand explanations from a social worker/legal professional, but still felt like you didn't quite get it? You are welcome to come and exchange ideas.

**Note: The focus of this lecture is to discuss pitfalls in cross-professional and public dialogue, rather than focusing on legal knowledge education and training. For such needs, please refer to our official website page, which includes two legal-popularization articles and seminar records on "When Social Workers Meet Criminal Litigation," and also offers applications for legal-popularization lectures open to schools and institutions.

5/23 Taipei Session

Moderator

Ts'ai Po-fang Associate Professor, Post-Baccalaureate Program in Medicine, National Tsing Hua University; Board Member, Taiwan Law and Society Association

Speaker

Li Ming-ju CEO and Attorney-at-Law, Judicial Reform Foundation
Shen Hou-shan Deputy Chairperson, Taipei City Social Workers' Union

• Time: 5/23 (Sat.) 18:30-20:30
• Location: Taipei Office, Judicial Reform Foundation
• 4F, No. 290, Minsheng W. Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei City
• Quota: In-person capped at 30 people (15 social workers, 15 legal professionals; overflow will be added to the waitlist, no online streaming)

5/30 Taichung Session

Moderator

Huang Chao-kai Full-time Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Tunghai University
 

Speaker

Li Ming-ju CEO and Attorney-at-Law, Judicial Reform Foundation
Shen Hou-shan Deputy Chairperson, Taipei City Social Workers' Union

• Time: 5/30 (Sat.) 14:00–16:00
• Location: Taichung Office, Judicial Reform Foundation
• 10F-2, No. 4-33, Sec. 1, Shuangshi Rd., East Dist., Taichung City
• Quota: In-person capped at 30 people (15 social workers, 15 legal professionals; overflow will be added to the waitlist, no online streaming)

"Giving a discarded rice cooker to a scavenger is seen by the public as a benevolent act born of sympathy, but under legal provisions, it becomes a felony with a minimum statutory sentence of five years. This stark contrast between plain cognition and legal labeling is the crux of the public outcry sparked by the 'Rice Cooker Case.' This lecture will take this judgment as a starting point to lead audiences in a deep exploration of why this law, originally designed to severely punish corrupt officials, has instead become a heavy penal shackle trapping grassroots personnel and ordinary individuals in modern practice."

Tracing back the history of the Anti-Corruption Act, the spirit of "using heavy punishments in chaotic times" causes sentences to frequently start at five or ten years. Yet in today's judicial arena, those caught in the net of heavy penalties are not only high-ranking officials; grassroots sanitation workers, police officers, or military personnel also frequently find themselves imprisoned due to the system's outdated nature. In situations involving trivial amounts and no malice—such as the rice cooker case, the prison cigarette-sending case, or the major general's mess-fund case—once labeled with corruption, even if judges strive to mitigate the sentence, defendants still face the cost of "deprivation of civil rights," causing their careers and pensions to vanish in an instant.

We will discuss why prosecutors cannot simply exercise "discretionary non-prosecution" when facing such minor cases; we will also deconstruct what the "substantial illegality" mentioned by judges in their written judgments actually is, and why it is so difficult for judges to issue an acquittal. When legal punishment has clearly detached from society's sense of morality, how should grassroots personnel within the pan-public service system see through the invisible traps around them, and how should the general public pay attention to such institutional reforms where "offenses are minor yet penalties are severe."

This lecture will not dwell too much on rigid legal provisions; instead, it will take everyone to see where things went wrong between the law and human nature behind these judgments. Why is "justice" so different from what we imagine? If the law can no longer keep up with the times, what should we do? Whether you are an employee of a public agency or a member of the public concerned with social justice, you are welcome to listen to the analysis of attorneys and rethink the law's original intention of protecting the kind-hearted.

Speaker

Ch'en Po-lin Attorney-at-Law, Fa-Chia Law Firm

Speaker

Chiang Yüan-t'ing Practicing Attorney-at-Law
 

• Time: 03/07 (Sat.) 14:00-16:00
• Location: Taichung Office, Judicial Reform Foundation
  10F-2, No. 4-33, Sec. 1, Shuangshi Rd., East Dist., Taichung City
  In-person attendance capped at 30 people; overflow will be added to the waitlist

This Session Has Ended

"Divorce" represents the termination of the status relationship between two people, but when negotiations break down and feelings reach their end, who exactly can petition the court for a judicial divorce? In legal terms, this is not an issue that can be resolved simply by saying "we are not on good terms."

In the past, our judicial practice long adhered to the "fault-based principle": whoever committed the fault could not proactively request a divorce. While this system seemed to protect the innocent party, it also left many marriages that existed in name only unable to reach a conclusion, simply because legal provisions were overly rigid. From Constitutional Court Judgment No. 4 of 2023 [Restricting the Solely At-Fault Spouse from Petitioning for Judicial Divorce Case] to social discussions sparked by recent celebrity marital crises, all signs reveal a signal: this law has begun to drastically loosen and transform.

Under current law, petitioning for a judicial divorce is no longer a simple determination of "who cheated" or "who committed domestic violence," but requires courts to more comprehensively weigh the degree of fault of both parties. We will discuss in the lecture: What exactly did this Constitutional Court Judgment say? Is it now easier for the at-fault party to get a divorce? And upon what specific evidence do courts rely when determining whether a marriage has "broken down"?

This lecture is not merely about exploring "who is right and who is wrong," but aims to guide everyone in seeing the social costs behind the termination of marriage amidst systemic changes, and to think together: In a future where divorce is easier, how should we demand that the law supplement necessary complementary measures? Whether you are experiencing marital difficulties, want to understand the latest legal developments, or are curious about the divorce controversies in recent news, we cordially invite you to come listen and discuss—you might just find legal tools to protect yourself and your family.

Speaker

Ts'ai Te-hsien Attorney-at-Law, Member of the Gender Judicial Reform Committee at the Judicial Reform Foundation
 

• Time: 01/24 (Sat.) 14:00-15:30
• Location: Taichung Office, Judicial Reform Foundation
  10F-2, No. 4-33, Sec. 1, Shuangshi Rd., East Dist., Taichung City
  In-person attendance capped at 30 people; overflow will be added to the waitlist

This Session Has Ended