Op-Ed | The Statute of Limitations for Child Sexual Offenses is Set to Be Extended! To Truly Value Victims' Rights, 3 More Details Require Consideration

Thanks to the courageous advocacy and voices of victims, the Ministry of Justice has finally announced draft amendments to the relevant provisions of Article 80 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China, extending the statute of limitations for prosecuting sexual offenses against children and adolescents. Although the contents of the draft currently under deliberation by the Ministry of Justice remain open to discussion, this legislative trend is essentially set.

In fact, similar legislative amendments have been implemented abroad for years. Yet legislative reform in Taiwan invariably requires sustained civil-society advocacy before progress can be made. Moreover, if this amendment is truly intended to remedy past shortcomings and genuinely value and protect victims' rights, at least three issues must be addressed at the same time.

What Is the Logic Behind Indicting the Defendant While Refusing Compensation to the Victim?

Under the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act, victims whose sexual autonomy has been infringed may apply for crime victim compensation. Under Article 63, the right to claim compensation is extinguished if it is not exercised within five years from the time the claimant becomes aware of the criminal victimization; the right is also extinguished once ten years have elapsed from the date of the criminal act. However, a person who was a minor at the time of the crime may still make a claim within five years after reaching the age of majority. By contrast, the statute of limitations for prosecuting sexual offenses is generally 10 years or longer. As long as the prosecution period has not expired, a victim may file a criminal complaint and the prosecutor may indict the perpetrator.

Consequently, a highly contradictory scenario may arise: a victim files a complaint with a district prosecutors office, and the prosecutor determines that a crime has been committed and indicts the defendant. Yet because the limitation period for crime victim compensation may expire much earlier, if the victim applies for compensation at a later date, the compensation review committee of the very same prosecutors office may refuse compensation entirely. What is the logic behind treating victims in this manner?

This issue has persisted for a long time. Under the former law, the period for applying for compensation was only two years. Particularly because public awareness was insufficient, many people did not even know that this form of compensation was available. Should the Ministry of Justice not address this problem and seriously consider compensation for victims whose applications were rejected in the past for this reason?

Furthermore, although the current Crime Victim Rights Protection Act provides that a person who was a minor at the time of the crime may apply for compensation within five years after reaching the age of majority, the Ministry of Justice has consistently interpreted the former law as providing no such rule. Accordingly, once the former two-year limitation period had expired, victims could not invoke the more favorable current provision allowing them to apply "within five years after reaching the age of majority." For sexual assault victims who are now adults, including victims in the high-profile "predatory teacher" cases, the vast majority are therefore unable to obtain compensation. This is how our state currently treats victims.

The Limitation Period for Civil Damages Claims Under the Civil Code Remains Only Two Years

This is also a longstanding issue. Whether in cases of sexual assault, homicide, or robbery, a victim's tort claim for civil damages is, in principle, subject to the two-year limitation period under Article 197 of the Civil Code, calculated from the time the victim becomes aware of both the injury and the person liable for compensation. Once that period expires, the perpetrator may raise a statute-of-limitations defense and refuse to pay damages.

Aside from the short duration, what defies ordinary expectations is that even if a victim files a "criminal complaint" in one of the cases described above, doing so does not itself stop the limitation period for a "civil damages" claim from running. If the criminal investigation takes a relatively long time, or if the criminal complaint is filed late, victims must remember to initiate a civil action against the defendant themselves in order to prevent the civil limitation period from expiring.

With respect to child sexual assault cases, there are currently no visible plans to amend these civil limitation rules. Accordingly, the general two-year limitation period for tort claims remains applicable. Although a perpetrator who has been indicted may still voluntarily compensate the victim in an effort to persuade the court to impose a lighter sentence—even after the civil claim has become time-barred—a reasonable limitation period should be a right belonging to the victim, not a bargaining chip for the perpetrator to seek leniency.

Therefore, in addition to amending the law specifically for sexual offenses against children and adolescents, a broader review of both the limitation period and the starting point for civil damages claims may also be necessary.

Is the Six-Month Filing Period for the "Surprise Touching" Offense Too Short?

For more serious "sexual assault crimes," the legislative direction is to calculate the prosecution period from the time a minor victim reaches the age of majority, which would substantially extend the period for prosecution. Meanwhile, for "sexual harassment," the complaint period has been extended to two years, or three years in cases involving abuse of power. Where the victim was a minor, the complaint period may extend to within three years after the victim reaches the age of majority.

However, for the so-called "surprise touching" offense under Article 25 of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act, which is regarded as falling somewhere between these categories in terms of seriousness, the period for filing a criminal complaint remains only six months.

In light of the present legislative reform, should the filing period for the "surprise touching" offense also be adjusted? In addition to considering consistency with the legislative direction described above, lawmakers should also take into account the offense's complaint-dependent nature, which is intended to preserve the victim's autonomy in deciding whether and how to hold the perpetrator accountable. There remains room for discussion regarding this aspect of reform, and the competent authorities should proactively study the issue and gather views from all sides.

The Shift of Shame

According to Ministry of Justice statistics, over the past 20 years, 1,097 survivors filed criminal complaints concerning sexual violence but received non-prosecution decisions solely because the statute of limitations had expired. Due to power imbalances and the shame that society has long imposed on victims, survivors of sexual violence often find it difficult to seek outside help.

To date, 37 survivors have participated in constitutional review proceedings, seeking justice through collective action in the hope of overturning social stereotypes, shifting the burden of shame, and returning responsibility to the perpetrators. If the government fails to reform proactively, every limitation threshold will only leave victims more isolated and justice more distant.

We ask government agencies: Are you still willing to do more for victims?

This article was published on November 4, 2025, in CommonWealth Opinion.