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
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