The National Judge Act (國民法官法) is to take effect on Jan. 1 next year. Courts across the nation are expected to organize lay judge simulation events before August to prepare for the official start. Notices have been sent to some members of the public to inform them that their names have been drawn to be lay judges.
One of these people, a woman surnamed Chang (張), has received three such notices requiring her to show up for duty at the Taoyuan District Court. Chang is 101 years old, has severe dementia and lives in a care home.
After the first two letters, her daughter sent a letter to the court by registered mail explaining her mother’s situation, and has called to try to speak to somebody directly, but she has received no response. The mother on Wednesday received the third notification, asking her to report to the court on the morning of Aug. 16 to attend the selection procedure for lay judges. Her daughter is understandably exasperated.
I have received such a letter from the Taitung District Court informing me that I had been selected for duty as a lay judge. I was confused, because last year, when I received the preliminary notification for selection, I specifically marked the box that said I did not want to be considered for service.
Why, then, had I subsequently received notification that my name had been listed? Was this an administrative error, or is the system poorly designed?
I do not want to serve as a lay judge because I have no legal expertise, and I do not know what my amateur opinion could add to the process.
Given the nature of Taiwan’s legal system, in which rulings delivered by different judges for the same case differ widely, I have no idea what a lay judge lacking any practical experience in the law could really bring to the party.
Judging a trial requires meticulous attention to the evidence and entails the rights of the people involved in the dispute. It needs people who know what they are doing, and it certainly cannot rely on drawing names out of a hat to decide who should be selected to serve.
I have no intention to be the face of a new policy, and I certainly do not want to be involved if my presence will be more of a hindrance than a help. This is why I indicated that I was not interested in participating in the system.
The Ministry of Justice printed a pamphlet on the lay judge system, complete with answers to frequently asked questions. The answer to the third question — “Can I refuse to be called to serve as a lay judge?” — is: “In principle, you cannot refuse unless you are over 70 years old, are a teacher or a student or have any other extenuating circumstances.”
Should I be unlucky enough to be selected and refuse to participate, would I be arrested or subject to criminal liability? Could I exercise the right to remain silent?
Taiwanese are constitutionally required to pay taxes and complete military service, but must everyone serve as a lay judge? Can the government really force anyone to do that?
Shiao Fu-song is a lecturer at National Taitung University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS