In his classic novel 1984, British writer George Orwell portrayed a future authoritarian society in which all citizens are brainwashed with slogans such as "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength." While the omniscient authority -- called Big Brother -- kept strict control over every aspect of the lives of citizens, the concept of civil rights was non-existent in a world where social order was the top civil priority.
In Taiwan, as well, citizens lived for nearly four decades with little anticipation of any recognition of their inherent rights, just as Orwell depicted the citizens of the superstate Ocenania.
In the era of martial law rule, from 1947 to 1987, it was considered a privilege for an ordinary Taiwan citizen to claim any right to an impartial trial. The guarantee of due process in the criminal justice system -- which is today widely perceived as essential to civil rights in any modern democracy -- was virtually unseen in any ordinary criminal procedures in Taiwan.
However, as the Big Brother of Taiwan's former authoritarian rule has gradually taken its hand away from the functions of the judiciary, during the past decade of democratic and legal reforms, a long running campaign for due process in the legal system has claimed at least partial success in Taiwan's criminal justice system.
Judicial Independence
The former iron grip of country leaders has, during this time, gradually conceded to growing demands for judicial independence and more recently, an increasing awareness of the due process of law.
"It used to be a failed attempt for me to warn the police not to violate due process in investigating criminal cases. But it has changed substantially in recent years," said Chen Jui-jen (
Chen said that when the executive branch of the government gradually released its control over judicial affairs, Taiwan's court system became more independent in determining whether investigative agencies had undermined the civil rights of crime suspects in the process of criminal investigations.
"Now, I have to say `no more'," Chen said, laughing, "because the police themselves would phone me up from time to time and inquire about the legality of the things they planned to do."
A recent decision by the Taipei district court over the inadmissibility of illegally-obtained evidence is being perceived as a critical ruling that embodies the due process of law. In compliance with the so-called "exclusionary rule," under which the use of any illegally-obtained evidence is disallowed, the district court acquitted a suspected robber on the grounds that the suspect's confession was extracted during a nighttime interrogation, which is now against the law.
In December 1997, significant amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code passed the legislature, as a further guarantee for civil rights through due process of criminal justice.
Aside from a decisive change that handed authority for detention back to the court system, the 1997 amendments installed articles called the Miranda Warning, under which the police must give fair notice to suspects before conducting interrogations. Without "reading a suspect his rights" the statute says, a suspect's answers may not be used as evidence in a trial.
RSS