Recently, Josephine Ho (何春蕤), a professor at National Central University (中央大學), has severely condemned the investigative methods of Taiwan's police -- including a huge number of "entrapment" (誘捕) and "fishing" (釣魚) cases. We agree with her that law enforcement officers should improve their investigative techniques, but believe she has mischaracterized the present situation. Therefore, an explanation of what the legal terms "entrapment" and "fishing" mean is in order, so that the public will not be misled by her misunderstanding.
First of all, the public needs to understand that the term "entrapment," as stipulated in US criminal code, does not refer to all undercover investigative operations. The US Supreme Court has recognized that when investigating certain criminal activities, police may lawfully adopt a variety of undercover techniques that, although elusive, do not constitute entrapment. Entrapment, in other words, is not equal to fishing according to the criminal law.
Entrapment refers to cases "when law enforcement officers have, through inappropriate means, induced a person to commit a crime and then arrested the person for committing that crime." Hence, a defendant is immune from legal prosecution if the investigation against the accused is ruled entrapment by a court. Moreover, according to the criminal law, the accused has the "burden of proof" regarding whether or not the investigative means was inappropriate when raising an entrapment defense. To argue that he or she was entrapped, the accused first needs to prove that the criminal act occurred because of the inducement of investigators, and the commission of the crime would have never taken place without such inducement.
That being so, although Ho has criticized law enforcement officers for searching in the newspapers or on the Internet for and arresting those who publish advertisements for enjokosai (freelance prostitution,
Ho also says that law enforcement sometimes intentionally post fake advertisements for prostitution or disguise themselves as prostitutes to lure clients. Do these types of fishing tactics qualify for the defense of entrapment? The answer is: not necessarily. A US Federal Court has ruled that any investigation involving fishing does not necessarily have to be launched after a specific suspect is targeted. Also, when arguing for a defense of entrapment in order to avoid prosecution, practically, a defendant must prove with evidence that he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced or harassed by police into committing the crime.
Some citizens have blamed police for not being frank and open enough, because, for example, local police often hide in dark corners to catch traffic violators. These citizens seem to have forgotten the real purpose of obeying traffic laws. What have the police who hide in dark corners got to do with them -- if they themselves do not violate the laws? Are they obeying the law merely to avoid being caught by police?
The purpose of abiding by the law is for us to live harmoniously. If a law enforcement method fails to tally with social norms, we can appeal to the government and the legislature to amend the law. However, it is indeed improper for anyone to mischarachterize the situation and to condemn all police without valid proof.
Frank Huang is dean of student affairs at the Central Police University. Lin Ching is a senior police officer. Translated by Eddy Chang
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS