"The King is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers; for they purpose not their deaths when they propose their services."
That musing from Shakespeare's Henry V comes to mind when considering the recent debate over prosecutorial discretion and responsibility. The latest version of this long-running debate was triggered by Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan's
My first comment on this episode is that it reflects a perennial problem with Chen; he starts talking before he starts thinking. It is a version of foot-in-mouth disease in which a senior public official is apparently unable to keep his mouth shut in public. Rather than say nothing, officials will say something idiotic, something that publicly displays their lack of knowledge of the area for which they are responsible. Chen needs to seek a cure for his case of foot-in-mouth.
His comments triggered considerable discussion, both within the ministry and in the media. Laying aside the issue of Chen's inability to control his tongue, let us turn to the core issue -- prosecutorial discretion and responsibility. The China Times ran an editorial that called for the establishment of prosecution guidelines and standards. I very much agree with that.
The issue of prosecution standards for charging suspects needs to be addressed. The standards need to be clear, flexible and transparent. In California, prosecutors rely on the Uniform Crime Charging Standards which are issued by the statewide prosecutors association.
These standards are not legally binding but they are considered authoritative. They are sets of principles, not rules. I draw that distinction because Taiwan's criminal justice system is obsessed with rules, a result of the fundamentally bureaucratic nature of the system here. The Californian standards lay out principles that are used to inform and shape judgment. Individual judgment on the part of the charging prosecutor is still the key factor.
Such standards, which Taiwan needs to develop, should address several areas. The first is evidentiary sufficiency -- how much evidence you need and how strong it needs to be, before you charge. There exists some confusion over the issue of evidentiary sufficiency, as is made clear by Chen's public confusion. The standards also need to make clear the internal procedures that will be followed concerning review of charging decisions. Whether a supervisor has the right to change the charging decision of a lower ranked prosecutor has long been an unresolved issue. These prosecution standards need to make clear also what is an improper basis for charging crimes, such as public or journalistic pressure to charge or the mere fact of a request to charge by a public agency, private citizen or public official, or to assist or impede the efforts of any candidate or prospective candidate for elected or appointed office.
Such standards will provide a firm and clear basis for charging decisions while allowing the necessary discretion. The propriety of a decision will be far easier to judge. Adherence to such standards, not whether the decision resulted in a conviction or not, would be the criteria by which to judge a prosecutor's decision. That is an entirely different set of criteria and an improper one. With such standards in place each "soldier" could "answer the particular endings" of their prosecutions.
Brian Kennedy is an attorney who writes and teaches on criminal justice and human rights issues.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously