During a Constitutional Court session last month assessing the constitutionality of the death penalty, one grand justice told a Ministry of Justice official that a trial cannot be influenced by public opinion — in other words, a ruling should remain free from public whim.
I have found that views on the matter vary greatly based on a person’s educational background. Those who have received a formal law education in Germany believe that sentencing should be formed independently, both from those in power and the public.
By contrast, those trained in law in the US think that sentencing is inseparable from public opinion, and that all three powers — the executive, legislative and judicial — should yield to the public’s will.
To that effect, it is clear why the amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) system, in which a non-litigating party is able to advise on a matter before the court, was able to flourish in the US, but not in Germany.
The US Supreme Court is especially sensitive to public sentiment regarding probative value — meaning the weight of evidence in court. For instance, when crime rates in the US remained low in the early 1950s to 1960s, the public tended to value the protection of human rights, prompting thorough and stringent assessments of the probative value by the Supreme Court. However, as crime rates started to rise from the 1970s, priorities shifted and security became the public’s top concern. In response, the US Supreme Court relaxed its interpretation of probative value to address the public’s concerns.
The US jury system was born out of democratic ideals, and bases itself on public opinion to determine the fate of defendants. However, it is important to note that judges have the power to overturn a jury’s guilty verdict if the evidence in court points to the defendant’s innocence.
At the turn of the 20th century, Germany tried to emulate the US jury system, but it did so in vain. The German judicial system could not bring itself to give complete power of sentencing to the jury, leaving it under the jurisdiction of professional judges. Germany then switched to a system involving schoffen — lay judges — in which professional judges consult with citizens to carry out sentencing.
In truth, the system of lay judges does not stem from democratic thought. Rather it resembles a dictatorship cloaked in a democratic guise.
A colleague at Tokyo University developed the saiban-in system in Japan, drawing from Germany’s lay judge model. Taiwan subsequently incorporated the Japanese model to form its own system of “citizen judges” (lay judges), which, much like its German and Japanese counterparts, bears little connection to democratic principles.
This shows that democracy in the US is more comprehensive, with public opinion influencing the trias politica — the executive, legislative and judicial — the holy trinity of government. In contrast, Germany’s judiciary remains insulated from public influence. Whether Taiwan will follow in the footsteps of Germany or the US, I leave that to the reader’s better judgement.
Huan Tong-shong is a former president of National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Gabrielle Killick
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS