Easing the Judicial Burden

Why Ease the Judicial Burden?

As Richard Posner argues in The Behavior of Federal Judges, co-authored with Lee Epstein and William M. Landes, it is more useful to view judges as participants in a judicial labor market than to rely solely on normative or political science theories: beyond professional norms and institutional rules, costs and benefits play a decisive role in how judges behave. Posner asks us not to find this vulgar. Considerations of time and quality of life, and the labor economics models built around them, often describe how decisions are actually made far more realistically.

The 1999 National Conference on Judicial Reform first proposed "reducing the burden of case processing." Yet after more than 20 years of discussion, Taiwan's judicial burden has only grown heavier, and lengthy, cumbersome procedures consume the time and resources of both the public and judicial officers. Caseloads in Taiwan remain persistently high, and this crushing workload, borne by judges and prosecutors year after year, not only distracts from the core work of adjudication but also raises doubts about the quality of judgments.

Table 1: Average Number of Cases Closed per Judge per Month in District Courts (2018–2022)

Year	Criminal Cases	Civil Cases	Non-contentious Matters	Civil Enforcement
2018	63.04	28.00	40.29	67.13
2019	60.36	30.54	40.93	53.50
2020	58.92	30.54	43.83	80.22
2021	53.09	27.76	40.96	60.46
2022	59.67	30.10	44.25	109.93

Table 2: Investigation Cases Received and Closed by District Prosecutors' Offices, 2018–2022

Year	New Cases Received	Cases Closed	Pending Cases	Average Days per Closed Investigation	Average Weighted Cases Closed per Prosecutor per Month
2018	486,772	482,034	66,862	52.14	117.12
2019	470,896	474,108	63,784	54.95	116.11
2020	499,607	484,565	78,942	53.49	113.20
2021	533,569	505,716	106,963	63.95	106.52
2022	639,301	636,468	110,002	61.99	122.66

Source: Judicial Yuan, Monthly and Annual Judicial Statistics

Rampant Fraud Adds to the Judicial Burden

In recent years, telecom fraud has run rampant, and the number of fraud cases has exploded. The volume of fraud cases referred to prosecutors' offices remains extremely high, a flood that has nearly paralyzed the police, prosecutors, and courts. New cases of this kind have grown at a staggering rate. Moreover, as technology advances and organized crime evolves, often across borders, telecom fraud differs from traditional crime in ways that make investigations harder and longer. This drains the time and energy police and prosecutors can devote to other cases and adds to their workload, and frontline police officers and prosecutors, who bear the brunt of it, suffer in silence.

Table 3: Telecom Fraud Cases at District Prosecutors' Offices, 2019–2023

Year	New Investigation, Miscellaneous, and Death Inquest Cases Nationwide	New Telecom Fraud Cases Nationwide	Telecom Fraud as a Share of All New Cases
2019	587,062	34,947	5.95%
2020	615,375	50,239	8.16%
2021	643,940	85,279	13.24%
2022	761,186	160,799	21.12%
2023 (Jan.–Aug.)	570,590	152,244	26.68%

Source: Ministry of Justice; special report to the 3rd plenary meeting of the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee, 8th Session of the 10th Legislative Yuan

Taken together, these figures show that Taiwan's judicial system was already struggling to cope with an enormous caseload. Add to this the year-on-year rise in fraud cases, an exodus of prosecutors, and chronic staff shortages, and the heavy workload and overworked environment have pushed judicial personnel to the brink. Easing the judicial burden is therefore not a mere slogan. It is about relieving the heavy pressure on judicial institutions and, while safeguarding people's procedural rights, protecting and improving the quality of justice.

Our Proposals

Through long-term study and discussion in its working groups, JRF has put forward seven proposals for easing the judicial burden: expanding the circumstances in which persons arrested in the act need not be transferred to a prosecutor; broadening the use of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution; simplifying the format of judgments and rulings; exploring ways to strengthen alternative dispute resolution (ADR); expanding the scope of plea bargaining; having judicial assistants help draft judgments and rulings; and outsourcing transcription in other types of cases, as is already done in criminal cases. We continue to discuss and develop new measures. By streamlining litigation procedures, making effective use of out-of-court dispute resolution, and drawing on judges' existing assistant resources, we hope to relieve the strain of staff shortages and heavy caseloads.

JRF is committed to easing the judicial burden and improving the quality of justice. We will continue to propose possible solutions and urge the government to take this issue seriously. A well-functioning judiciary is the foundation of a society governed by the rule of law; only a judiciary of high quality can protect human rights and earn the public's trust.