"Testilying" is American police slang for lying under oath. It is a combination of the words "testimony" and "lying." It is also an interesting and accurate way to describe the common situation of police lying in criminal trial courts both in the US and in Taiwan.
This lesson in American police slang comes to mind due to the recent conviction in Taipei District Court of police officer Chang Yao-sheng (張耀昇) (page 1, Aug. 31). Chang, who was a supervising officer, was found guilty by the court of having fabricated details of his involvement, or more correctly his non-involvement, with the capture of the defendants in the high profile Pai Hsiao-yen (白曉燕) kidnap murder case several years ago. In essence he filed false reports and then perjured himself in court. I would conjecture that the only reason he did not get away with it was because fellow officers testified against him. The reason for the unusual split in the "Blue Curtain" of police silence was the fact that everybody wanted to get their full and accurate credit and fame for their parts in the shootout. The cops that were there were disinclined to divide the fame with cops who weren't; even with supervisors who weren't.
The case is unusual in a sense and usual in another sense. It is unusual in that a senior police officer was convicted of perjury based on the testimony of fellow officers. It was usual in that cops routinely lie under oath.
Serious commentators from both a prosecution and criminal defense background acknowledge the specter of police perjury. Alan Dershowitz is a well known criminal defense attorney, law professor, popular author and legal commentator in the US. As Professor Dershowitz has pointed out: "Police perjury in criminal cases -- particularly in the context of searches and other exclusionary rule issues -- is so pervasive that the former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City has estimated that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests alone." Professor Irving Younger who was professor of law at New York University echoes Professor Dershowitz's thoughts on police perjury. He was also a former federal prosecutor. He has written: "Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace. The reason is not hard to find. Policemen see themselves as fighting a two-front war against, on the one hand, criminals in the street, and, on the other, against `liberal' rules of law in court. All's fair in this war, including the use of perjury to subvert `liberal' rules of law that might free those who `ought' to be jailed."
Although both of these law professors were referring to the situation in the American criminal justice system, many Taiwanese legal scholars and practitioners would assert that Taiwan's criminal justice system suffers from exactly the same malaise; that is, rampant police perjury and falsified reports.
All of this raises the question of why the police routinely lie under oath.
Professor Darryl Wood of the University of Alaska puts forward this "rationale" for police "testilying." He lists five core beliefs of the police subculture:
First, the police view themselves as the only real crime fighters.
Second, no one else understands them; non-police do not understand what police work is all about.
Third, loyalty to each other; police officers have to stick together because everyone is out to get the police and make the job of the police more difficult.
Fourth, you can't win the war against crime without bending rules; the courts have awarded criminals too many civil rights.
Fifth, the public is unsupportive and too demanding; people are quick to criticize the police unless they need help.
Taking these elements together it is easy to see how police, in their own subculture and in their own minds could justify the practice of "testilying." Simply put, the cops consider lying under oath to be either a "necessary evil to fighting crime" or "a convenient expedient" or both.
In Taiwan we have the added element of career advancement, which figured in the case of Officer Chang.
The first step to solving any problem is admitting it exists. It is time for the general public and the Taiwanese criminal justice system to face the corrosive impact of police lying and begin to remedy the situation. A cancer that is left untreated spreads.
Brian Kennedy is a member of the Board of Amnesty International Taiwan and of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS