2025年12月19日發生的張文隨機攻擊事件，造成4人死亡、11人受傷的重大傷亡，不僅震撼社會，也引發廣泛的不安與恐慌。這起案件的意義早已超越單一治安事件，而是清楚暴露出台灣在社會制度設計、公共安全防護，以及風險預警機制上的多重結構性漏洞，值得全面而深刻的檢討。

首先，這起事件凸顯社會安全網與通緝機制的明顯失靈。張文因涉嫌妨害兵役，早在2025年7月即遭發布通緝，然而在成為通緝犯後，他仍能在雙北地區活動長達數月，未被有效追蹤或攔截。更令人警惕的是，他在此期間不僅成功隱匿行蹤，還能透過網路購物平台取得煙霧彈、汽油桶等具高度危險性的物資，並進行長時間、有計畫的準備。事後調查也發現，張文已與父母失聯長達兩年，社交網絡極度薄弱，臉書好友寥寥無幾，長期處於高度社會孤立的狀態。專家指出，這類與社會斷裂、缺乏支持系統、卻逐步走向激進化的「自我訓練型孤狼」，正是現行社會安全網最難以觸及的一群人，也反映出政府在早期辨識、跨部門通報與介入輔導方面的嚴重不足。

其次，案件本身也顯示出隨機犯罪型態的「進化」，其成熟度與危險性明顯提高。與過去較為衝動、瞬間爆發的隨機殺人案件不同，張文的行動具有近似恐怖攻擊的特徵。他的犯案計畫長達一年八個月，相關內容甚至儲存在雲端空間中，並且曾多次進行場勘與路線測試，顯示其行為並非情緒失控，而是長期累積、理性策畫的結果。案發當天，他多次變裝，前後更換五次服裝、使用四種不同交通工具，刻意製造警方追查上的斷點，展現出相當程度的反偵查意識。這種高度準備、具策略性的行為模式，已對傳統以監視器與事後追緝為主的治安體系構成嚴峻挑戰。

再者，事件也清楚暴露公共場所與交通節點在防護上的脆弱性。嫌犯先在台北車站投擲煙霧彈，隨後又在捷運中山站及百貨商圈（誠品南西店）持刀追砍，形成短時間、多地點的連環攻擊。這類型態顯示，在人潮密集的大型轉運站與商業區，一旦遭遇突發且快速移動的暴力事件，現場警力與保全人員往往難以及時形成有效攔截，反應時間明顯不足。同時，嫌犯能輕易透過電商平台購得刀具、煙霧彈，甚至取得汽油等具高度危險性的物品，也反映出對於管制物品與潛在危險化學品的網路販售與物流流程，仍存在明顯監管盲區，缺乏風險辨識與異常購買的預警機制。

此外，事件後續在法律定性與補償制度上亦引發高度爭議。內政部將此案定調為「非恐怖攻擊」，直接影響死傷者與其家屬所能獲得的補償與理賠金額，引發社會對現行犯罪被害補償制度是否足以因應新型態重大暴力事件的質疑。另一方面，案發後網路上迅速出現模仿性言論，例如「為何不等跨年再犯案」等極端發言，顯示重大刑案對社會心理的衝擊與負面擴散速度極快，也突顯政府在輿情管理、媒體自律與防止模仿犯方面，仍有明顯的制度缺口與法治警示需求。

整體而言，張文隨機攻擊事件不僅是一場悲劇，更是一面照見社會問題的鏡子。它迫使社會重新正視心理健康支持系統的不足、對邊緣與孤立族群的忽視，以及公眾對突發暴力事件的防衛意識與應變能力。若僅止於個案譴責，而未能在制度層面進行修補與改革，類似的風險恐怕仍將持續潛伏，成為下一次悲劇的溫床。

The random attack carried out by Chang Wen on December 19, 2025, which resulted in four deaths and eleven injuries, not only shocked society but also triggered widespread fear and anxiety. The significance of this case goes far beyond an isolated public security incident. It starkly exposed multiple structural weaknesses in Taiwan’s social institutions, public safety protections, and risk-prevention mechanisms, calling for comprehensive and in-depth reflection.

First, the incident revealed serious failures in the social safety net and the fugitive tracking system. Chang Wen had been wanted since July 2025 on suspicion of evading military service, yet after becoming a fugitive he was able to move freely within the Greater Taipei area for several months without effective tracking or interception. Even more alarming was the fact that during this period he successfully concealed his whereabouts while purchasing highly dangerous materials such as smoke bombs and gasoline containers through online shopping platforms, enabling long-term and deliberate preparation for the attack. Subsequent investigations also showed that Chang had been out of contact with his parents for two years, had very few Facebook friends, and lived in an extremely socially isolated state. Experts pointed out that individuals who are detached from society, lack support systems, and gradually become radicalized—often described as “self-trained lone wolves”—are precisely the group least effectively covered by existing social safety networks. This case highlights the serious shortcomings in early identification, cross-agency information sharing, and timely intervention.

Second, the case demonstrated the “evolution” of random violent crime, with a markedly higher level of maturity and danger. Unlike past incidents of impulsive, emotionally driven random killings, Chang Wen’s actions bore clear similarities to terrorist attacks. His plan had been in preparation for one year and eight months, with detailed notes stored in cloud services, and he had conducted multiple site inspections and route tests in advance. On the day of the attack, he changed disguises multiple times, altered his clothing five times, and used four different modes of transportation to deliberately create investigative blind spots. This level of counter-surveillance awareness indicates a calculated and strategic mindset, posing a severe challenge to traditional law-enforcement systems that rely heavily on surveillance cameras and post-incident pursuit.

Third, the incident exposed the vulnerability of public spaces and transportation hubs. The suspect threw smoke bombs at Taipei Main Station and later carried out knife attacks at MRT Zhongshan Station and a nearby shopping district, including the Eslite Nanxi area, forming a series of attacks across multiple locations within a short period of time. This pattern showed that in crowded transit centers and commercial zones, once sudden and mobile violent incidents occur, on-site police and security personnel often struggle to respond quickly enough to effectively intercept the attacker. At the same time, the suspect’s ability to easily acquire knives, smoke bombs, and even gasoline through e-commerce platforms highlighted regulatory blind spots in the online sale and distribution of controlled items and potentially dangerous substances, as well as the lack of effective risk assessment and abnormal purchase alerts.

In addition, the aftermath of the incident sparked intense controversy regarding legal classification and victim compensation. The Ministry of the Interior classified the case as “not a terrorist attack,” a decision that directly affected the compensation amounts available to victims and their families. This classification prompted public debate over whether existing crime victim compensation frameworks are adequate for addressing new forms of large-scale, highly organized violent attacks.