2026/04/11 08:49 Reporter Yang Xinhui / Taipei Report
Domestic violence tragedies are occurring frequently. The Legislative Yuan has proposed that relevant ministries amend Article 31 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act to add a provision allowing electronic monitoring of those who violate protection orders. However, the current amendments by relevant ministries focus more on “back-end” processing. In the past, there have been cases where victims were severely beaten by domestic abusers before protection orders were issued. Legal experts believe that Article 14 or 16 should be amended to incorporate a monitoring mechanism when protection orders are issued in order to truly achieve a preventative effect.
In July of last year, a shocking case occurred in Tucheng District, New Taipei City, where a man surnamed Xie violated a protection order and fatally stabbed his wife, surnamed Zhang, and her sister-in-law in the street. That same month, in Xinyi District, Taipei City, a suspect surnamed Liu attacked a female hostess surnamed Gu with a knife due to a relationship dispute. Gu had applied for a protection order two months before the incident, but tragically, she was murdered on the very night the order was issued.
However, similar cases are not limited to “violation of protection orders.” In fact, it’s common for victims to be attacked before the protection order has even been issued. In August of last year, a blond man in Taipei’s Nangang District assaulted his wife with a helmet, even though she had filed a police report and applied for a protection order a week earlier. She was attacked again before the order was issued.
According to statistics from the Ministry of Justice, from 2020 to 2023, the average time for courts to terminate a civil protection order was 1.08 days for an emergency protection order, 23.36 days for a temporary protection order, and 52.08 days for a regular protection order, indicating a significant “fatal window period” for protection orders.
Against this backdrop, legislative amendments by relevant ministries still focus on electronic monitoring measures “after a protection order is violated,” that is, using electronic monitoring as an alternative measure when prosecutors or judges determine that detention is unnecessary.
The legal community generally believes that the current legislative direction is overly focused on “back-end” processing mechanisms, primarily targeting monitoring measures during the stage of suspending detention or alternative measures in criminal proceedings. The purpose of such electronic surveillance is to prevent defendants from fleeing, which is fundamentally different from the need for “immediate protection of victims” in domestic violence cases, and may be insufficient to effectively address practical risks.
A senior judge pointed out that current electronic surveillance is handled by escape-prevention-oriented technology monitoring centers, and the related manpower and equipment are already saturated. Including a large number of domestic violence cases could affect overall operational efficiency. In contrast, domestic violence prevention should return to “prevention at the front end.” It is recommended that electronic surveillance be implemented simultaneously during the issuance of protection orders under Articles 14 and 16, and that it be implemented by police agencies with nationwide networks and real-time response capabilities to provide more immediate and comprehensive protection for victims.
Wang Po-Chi, Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Justice and Graduate Institute of at Ming Chuan University an interview that the time difference between application and issuance of a protection order is what society calls the “judicial window period.” Both the pre- and post-issuance monitoring mechanisms need to be re-examined. Furthermore, Article 31 could be supplemented with more conditions to strengthen control over high-risk perpetrators. For example, those with a history of violence, stalking, mental illness, being in divorce proceedings, or emotional instability should all be included in the assessment.
Professor Wang Po-Chi, in an interview with the Liberty Times, stated that the “Protection Order Loophole 3-1” poses a fatal risk before issuance, and that the amendments to the Domestic Violence Law only address the backend.