At an election rally on Nov. 26 last year, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Committee member Sean Lien (連勝文) was shot in the face and a bystander was killed. With the detention period for the suspected gunman nearing its time limit, charges have finally been brought against the man in custody.
The Banciao District Prosecutors’ Office only brought charges against the detained suspect, Lin Cheng-wei (林正偉), based on the conclusion that there was only one assailant who fired one bullet from one gun, causing one death and one injury, without the involvement of any accomplice. Although people have doubts about whether there were any accomplices, under the existing legal system, the prosecutors’ decision on how to prosecute the case has to be accepted because there is no way of altering it.
In Taiwan, prosecutors are not just in charge of investigations, they have many other powers. For example, they have the power to direct and monitor the way judicial police handle a case and the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of an accused person. They also have the power after concluding an investigation to drop the charges or defer an indictment against the accused, even if they believe that person to be guilty. Prosecutors might make such a decision out of concern for criminal policy, as long as the crime is not very serious, and the result of their decision is hardly different from pronouncing a not-guilty verdict.
The enormous powers in the hands of prosecutors can easily lead to abuses and unscrupulous practices. For example, in the past, when prosecutors still had the power to give the go-ahead for telephone wire-tapping, there was a case in which prosecutors, who approved a wire-tap as part of an investigation into gambling and match-fixing in professional baseball, had someone place bets for them based on information they had overheard from the wire-tap and the prosecutors won big.
Another problem is that prosecutors can defer indictments in a wide range of cases, which makes it hard to guarantee that the accused in some cases will not try to persuade prosecutors to defer the indictments against them in exchange for bribes.
Given the great extent of prosecutors’ powers and the potential for abuse, there is an urgent need for some kind of counterbalance mechanism.
The existing legal system provides a system called “reconsideration of rulings,” under which a plaintiff, if he or she thinks that prosecutors have acted unlawfully or improperly by dropping charges or deferring an indictment, can request more senior prosecutors to review the decision. This serves as a form of self-regulation within the prosecutorial system.
If the more senior -prosecutors uphold the original decision, the plaintiff may request a hearing in a court of law so that the court can deliberate on whether the prosecutors’ ruling in the case was lawful and proper. This system might appear to be an effective restraint on prosecutors’ powers, but in reality, it has a blind spot because not every case has a plaintiff.
If there is no plaintiff, this system for overseeing the prosecution service cannot be initated. Worse, this system of reconsideration of rulings and bringing them to trial only applies to cases in which charges are dropped or indictments deferred. If another kind of ruling were made, this system would not apply at all.
With regard to the election-eve shooting, some of those directly involved, as well as many people from the rival pan-blue and pan-green political camps, have serious doubts about the conclusion that the shooting was the act of a lone gunman. However, there is probably nothing they can do about it under the existing legal system now that prosecutors have filed charges.
Although the case is to be handed over to the courts for trial, Article 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) stipulates that a prosecution shall not affect a person other than the accused who was indicted by a prosecutor. So, even if the court suspects that the prosecutors’ investigation was inadequate and that there were other accomplices or accessories to the crime, the judges trying the case — in their role as impartial third parties and according to the principle of “no trial without complaint” — have no right to consider any suspicions unless prosecutors bring charges against alleged accomplices.
As for the surviving victim, who is the person most interested in finding out the truth of the case, he is neither plaintiff nor accused. He can only appear in court and state his views in the role of a witness. If the victim were to stand up in court and accuse prosecutors of having failed to conduct an adequate investigation, it could actually undermine the prosecution and work to the advantage of the accused.
Although many people have no faith in the conclusion of the prosecutors’ investigation in the Lien shooting and hope that more will be done to reveal the truth behind it, under the existing legal system, once prosecutors have finished their investigation there is hardly any means of altering their conclusions. This situation highlights the fact that prosecutors in Taiwan have tremendous powers with very little in the way of checks and balances.
Power cannot be left unlimited without sufficient checks, balances and oversight, and internal oversight alone does not suffice.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Financial and Economic Law.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS