Judicial system encourages torture
Most activists and lawyers, however, say that more than anything else it is the judiciary's acceptance of confessions that encourages the police to torture suspects.
"It's the pollution of the upper reaches [judges] that makes the downstream [police officers] dirty," commented Peter Huang (
Legal professionals call confessions the "queen of evidence." In Taiwan, when a confession matches the known details of the crime, other evidence becomes of minor importance. Confessions of different suspects involved in the same case serve to corroborate one another.
Critics say that Taiwanese judges always have piles of cases awaiting verdicts.
"They don't have time to review cases. So even if the evidence is insufficient, as long as confessions are obtained, the judges will simply convict the suspect for convenience's sake," both Lee and Su said.
They complained that the attitude of the judiciary encourages the police to file confessions gained through torture, which are more easily acquired, than through the use of scientific evidence.
Compounding the problem, prosecutors are equally disinterested in torture cases, although they are obliged to conduct investigations into torture once an allegation is made.
"Prosecutors and police are on the same side," said Lin.
"Our students are not trained to conduct investigations. Once they become prosecutors, they rely on the police for investigations. For that reason, they cannot be against the police," Lee said.
Critics say the mentality and legal training of judicial professionals is also a huge problem. "My students told me they chose a career in law for the money," Lee said.
"Taiwanese society lacks sufficient education regarding respect for human rights," Lin said.
Huang and Chiu said Taiwan's isolation from the international community and its decades under martial law had caused it to lag behind in the promotion of human rights.
Lawyers agree that cases of the police being prosecuted for torturing suspects is extremely rare. Su said judges, who have only one and a half years of training before sitting on the bench, are woefully ill-equipped for finding evidence of torture.
Su accused the police of failing to follow the law by videotaping and recording the questioning of suspects. Lin and Su have encountered editing and muffling of tapes by the police to remove evidence of torture.
Police don't care about videotaping the process because they aren't responsible for providing evidence to prove that they have not tortured suspects, they said.
The suspect who makes an allegation of torture is required to provide evidence of that torture, often difficult when the torture has been conducted in a closed room in the presence of no one other than police officers.
RSS