The media recently has been full of reports that the police have finally solved the mystery of who murdered of Wu Hsiao-hui (
Police were able to clear up the Wu case because criminal investigators collected adequate evidence, including one suspect's DNA samples and a palm print, at the crime scene. Since the evidence was well-preserved, police were able to arrest the suspects after matching the scientific evidence eight years later.
A big difference between the Wu case and many controversial cases in the past is that police were able to arrest the suspects and charge them simply based on scientific evidence, and that confessions from the suspects were absolutely unnecessary. Police in Taiwan have a bad habit of being preoccupied solely with getting suspects' confessions while ignoring scientific evidence at crime scenes. From Wu's case, however, we know that whether a suspect has confessed to his or her crime is not important.
This year, both the Judicial Yuan and the Judicial Reform Foundation have actively pushed for amendments to the rules of evidence detailed in the Criminal Procedure Law (刑事訴訟法) to have a defendant's confession to police or prosecutors rendered inadmissible. If they succeed, torture, threats or gimmicks should all be eliminated from the criminal investigation process. The reformers hope that the amendment will be passed by the Legislative Yuan this year.
Wu's case has highlighted another problem, as the public questions whether the police made a special effort to preserve the evidence because the victim was the daughter of a local police chief. There have been many cases in the past in which important pieces of evidence have been damaged or even lost. This is why the reform foundation has in recent years promoted a scientific approach to criminal investigations. But the police still use traditional investigative methods. Their scientific investigation skills are manifestly inadequate. Forensic examiners are employed solely at city and county police headquarters. Once a major crime occurs, local police are unable to undertake a thorough collection of evidence without the help of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (刑事警察局), under the Ministry of the Interior, or the Investigation Bureau (調查局), under the Ministry of Justice. Due to police's inadequate understanding of crime-scene preservation, however, many crime scenes are disturbed before forensic examiners arrive.
In addition, Wu's case has highlighted law-enforcement officers' lack of understanding of those who are mentally handicapped, as well as of disadvantaged groups. After the murder, in October 1994, police arrested a mentally handicapped man, treating him as the prime suspect on the basis of an alleged confession without considering his congenital weakness and ability to understand the case. Later, he was released because his palm print and DNA samples did not match those from the crime scene. There have been many similar cases, proving that police often clear up cases on the basis of confessions. This may easily lead to miscarriages of justice.
Law-enforcement officers can effectively maintain social order only if the government provides them with the necessary equipment to conduct criminal investigations and training for the handling of crime scenes.
Chan Shun-kuei is a lawyer at the Judicial Reform Foundation; Chen Hsiu-hsuan is a volunteer at the foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS