日治之初，政治反抗者本於武力抗官傳統對抗日軍，殖民統治當局乃訴諸軍事暴力，繼而兼施法律暴力，並以對西來庵事件的嚴酷判決作結。但一般人，則在法律體制內，對抗法律暴力。按日本基於其殖民統治之需要，頒行部分具有近代性的刑事法，而台灣人僅能以子之矛，即近代性，攻子之盾，即日本政府之濫行國家暴力；民事法雖亦有一部分的法律暴力性格，但台灣人相當能善用其中有利於人民者。於日治中期，台灣人政治異議者開始運用明治憲政體制所承認的臣民基本權利，謀求改善殖民地法律暴力之道，但統治當局仍根據當時的國家法律來壓制，不過像台灣議會請願運動領導者，僅有幾位遭法院判處幾個月的徒刑。對於如台灣共產黨般否定憲政體制者，殖民統治當局則施以強度較高的法律暴力。於日治晚期，歷經數十年法律暴力鎮壓的台灣社會，已難以反抗國家權威。戰後接管台灣之來自中國的國民黨政府，基於仇日情緒及中國國族主義，漠視日治時期台灣歷史，全然貶抑當時的法制。但是國民黨同樣以「復興基地」說把台灣人民當工具，以法律暴力踐踏人民，於二二八事件更濫施日治初期才有的軍事暴力，使得許多具日治經驗的本省族群台灣人，反而肯定日本所帶來的法律秩序，且以某些本省族群菁英為主的政治反對陣營，亦採取「在不義體制內對抗不義」的作法。國民黨不像日本殖民者可從島外源源不斷輸入統治階層，只能一方面以法律暴力壓制反對勢力，另一方面現地培養跟隨者，但仍擋不住自由民主的浪潮，終於讓出掌握55年的中央行政部門執政權。於今，國民黨長期憑恃法律暴力所傳播的歷史評價，依然與從台灣人民觀點出發的其他歷史評價並存，但無論如何，應譴責未來再出現任何形式的法律暴力。

In the initial period of the Japanese colonial rule, Taiwanese resisters who frequently protested against the government by force in the past fought against the Japanese army as before. The Japanese authorities appealed to military violence and then “legal violence” to kill them. On the other hand, the general public resisted the legal violence of the colonial authorities within the legal framework. In consideration of the needs of colonial rule, the Japanese brought the criminal law with a certain degree of modernity to Taiwan. Accordingly, the Taiwanese can criticize the legal violence by the criterion of modernity. The civil law in Taiwan was also stipulated for the interests of colonial rulers, but the Taiwanese successfully employed it for their own benefit. In the middle period of the Japanese rule, the Taiwanese dissenters applied the provisions relating to fundamental rights in the Meiji Constitution to improve their legal status. Unfortunately, the colonial government still suppressed their political activities in accordance with the state law. Furthermore, those Taiwanese dissenters who objected The Chinese Nationalist government who took over Taiwan after the World War Ⅱ always ignored the colonial experiences that the native Taiwanese had and merely blamed the colonial law for its sewing for the colonialism, if those experiences were mentioned. Nevertheless, many native Taiwanese adopted positive attitudes toward the past colonial law on the ground that as the Japanese colonialists did before, the Chinese Nationalist government regarded the Taiwanese people as instrument to achieve the goal of the ruler, suppressed them with legal violence and sometimes appealed to military violence. Following the same strategy of “resisting unjust law within a unjust legal framework”, many native Taiwanese elite opposed to the Chinese Nationalist government. Unlike the Japanese colonialists, the Chinese Nationalist government was not able to recruit new members from their other country, and therefore finally terminated its fifty-five year rule in Taiwan in 2000. However, the historical appraisal relating to the Japanese period that has been spread widely by the Chinese Nationalist government with legal violence for a long time is still prevalent and competes with others that are based on the viewpoint of the Taiwanese people. At any event, legal violence is never allowed in the future the constitutional framework were severely punished by the Japanese law. Under the legal violence existing for several decades, the Taiwanese society could not but surrender to the authority of the state.