The Judicial Yuan released a draft bill for “fair and prompt” criminal trials (刑事妥速審判法) on Aug. 5, and has held six public hearings across Taiwan since Aug. 18. Most academics who attended the hearings seemed to believe the draft would not have an immediate and obvious effect on pending cases, and that it might lead to unpredictable risks.
Even so, the Judicial Yuan quickly passed a slightly amended version of the draft on Oct. 15 and immediately submitted it for legislative review. It also sent out press releases to promote the advantages of the draft, as if it were absolutely necessary to pass the draft before the end of the current legislative session.
On May 14, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which had been approved by the legislature. Article 14 of the former states that, “Everyone shall be entitled to be tried without undue delay.”
But the trials of Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順), Su Chien-ho (蘇建和) and Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強), which have been delayed now for 22, 19 and 16 years respectively, highlight the fact that the judicial system is incapable of handling such cases. This is a violation of the basic human rights afforded by the international covenants signed by Ma, not to mention that some victims of these miscarriages of justice have yet to receive compensation for wrongful imprisonment after 30 years.
The Judicial Yuan’s intention of treating pending cases according to international human rights standards as laid out by the international covenants is commendable, but the real question is how to do this.
Take Su of the “Hsichih Trio,” for example. If Su is found guilty this time, prosecutors can still appeal based on the draft. If the Taiwan High Court finds him not guilty for the third time in the retrial, then the prosecutors can no longer appeal, and the case will end. But if the court finds him guilty, the draft states that even if there are facts that still haven’t been clarified, an appeal is restricted to dealing with legal issues only, and will not deal with disputes over the facts. The Supreme Court can directly overrule an appeal, Su’s verdict will be final and he will have to face execution.
Is this the “justice” that we want? Since Taiwan’s judges often lack the determination and courage to adhere to the presumption of innocence, how many will find an accused not guilty even if evidence is weak?
The major cause of delays to cases is the inability to establish facts. Blocking a defendant who has been found guilty from filing an appeal based on arguments over facts does not solve the problem.
If the Judicial Yuan disagrees, perhaps it could investigate why cases delayed for more than six years — the cut-off point for special treatment stipulated in the draft — have been delayed so long, then announce the results to the public. It should also state how many cases involve a defendant who has been found not guilty by the Taiwan High Court three times or more.
On the surface, the draft seems fair because prosecutors will be unable to appeal a not-guilty verdict if a case has been delayed for six years or more and a defendant has had his or her verdict changed to not guilty three times.
However, it also deprives defendants of the right to appeal a guilty verdict. Is this an attempt to solve the problem or an attempt to bury unfortunate defendants who have been tortured by the judiciary over a long period of time?
Lin Feng-jeng is executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS