A recent survey indicates that "black gold" politics bothers people in Taiwan more than any other social problem. A closer look at the judicial system tells us that judges are also becoming very discouraged about the battle against "black gold."
Unless one is familiar with the criminal system, it is difficult to see its flaws. It is precisely this monopolization of knowledge that allows a small minority to manipulate the judicial system at will.
Let's use the infamous murder trial of Pingtung County Council Speaker Cheng Tai-chi (
During the initial trial, the Pingtung District Court adopted the prosecutor's findings. The prosecution had found that Cheng, legislator Huang Ching-ping (
Over a four year period this case went back and forth between various courts. The Pingtung District Court heard the initial trial and delivered a guilty verdict, sentencing the defendants to death.
The case was then heard by the Kaohsiung branch of the High Court five times and the Supreme Court four times (since the higher court bounced it back to the lower level four times).
The first time the Supreme Court heard the case it questioned how many shots were fired (the deceased was hit by 19 bullets), where the wounds were and exactly how many guns were used. These questions had not been answered by the initial investigation and therefore the High Court judgements were overturned.
Thereafter, the case swung back and forth between the High Court and the Supreme Court. Each time the High Court conducted a new investigation and made new findings, the Supreme Court would abandon its previous views.
For example, the High Court found that the defendants used five guns to fire 14 shots which created 19 wounds. But the Supreme Court suspected that there might have been another gun that was left out of the investigation.
In its next investigation the High Court found that the defendants had a total of seven handguns (which conformed with the view of the Supreme Court) but only fired five of them.
The Supreme Court then found that a total of 16 bullets had been fired, which made the High Court's finding of 14 bullets erroneous. The Supreme Court even asked the lower court to check the scene of the crime for any additional bullets.
The Supreme Court often raised many irrelevant questions during its hearings on the case and haggled over miniscule details. As a result, the case dragged on for a long time without a final judgement.
Most noteworthy, however, was the attitude of the Supreme Court. It completely neglected its duty -- to review legal issues -- and became totally submerged in fact finding.
This would have been okay if the nation's highest court had had the wisdom to discover critical evidence. However, some of the questions it raised were simply ludicrous. How many guns were used? How many were shots were fired? Which handgun fired which of the bullets? Where were the 19 wounds found on the deceased located?
Using this kind of standard, the "facts" of the case could never be straightened out unless the Supreme Court justices had actually been at the crime scene at the time of the shooting.
Due to this kind confusion and reversal of roles, the justices complained about their heavy case loads. As a result, more judges were added to the Supreme Court, thereby adding even more divergent legal views.
Even the judges of the lower courts were going mad during the protracted process, not to mention the common folk.
Worse yet, because the presence of the prosecutor during a hearing at the court of second instance is a mere formality, virtually all appeals to the Supreme Court are made by defendants.
Unless laws were applied erroneously, the judgement entered on an appeal cannot be less favorable than the initial verdict. This is why a harsh verdict entered by the court of first instance is often reduced to half by the court of second instance and after the case reaches the court of third instance, the defendant is often just set free.
In the Cheng case the defendants' sentences were reduced from death to life imprisonment, then from a 15-year jail term to 10-years and so on, as the case bounced back and forth.
While the problems with our legal system are often structural, human factors certainly play an important role.
Chang Sheng-hsing is a judge of the Taichung District Court.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under