Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators last month proposed amendments to the Court Organization Act (法院組織法). The amendments, which have proceeded to a second reading, would allow for the live broadcasts of courtroom proceedings, which could be highly problematic.
In 2000, I was tasked with cracking down on illegal sand and gravel excavation. One day, I was summoned to testify in a case, in which I answered all of the questions truthfully and accurately, to the dismay of the defendant. After the hearing, the defendant and several of his accomplices followed me, seemingly with the intention to take revenge. Fortunately, I was vigilant enough to quickly run into the nearest police station and seek help, narrowly escaping danger.
Based on my own experience, I can only imagine what would happen if the TPP’s courtroom broadcast proposal were to be implemented. It would inevitably place immense psychological pressure on courtroom witnesses and experts due to concerns over threats to their safety.
If a witness were summoned to testify, they might seek to protect themselves by adopting a passive and defensive mentality, not daring to speak the full truth. That would undoubtedly affect a trial’s pursuit of truth and justice. Under such circumstances, would courts be able to deliver fair and accurate judgements?
Live broadcasts would also not be fair to the victims. The details of criminal cases most often involve highly sensitive personal information that should not be made public — such as personal finances, family, marriage status, health, sex life or occupation. Televising the proceedings would publicize details about a victim’s experience of a crime, which would be tantamount to rubbing salt in their wounds, harming them for a second time.
Article 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that a defendant is presumed innocent until convicted. Criminal trials require professional and expert handling. They are completely unlike the courtroom dramas portrayed on TV.
Televised trials can easily lead to cases being tried in the court of public opinion. Social discourse in Taiwan often leans toward populism, making it easy for individuals and entities to stir up public emotions. That could prevent a defendant from receiving a fair trial. In extreme cases, details from proceedings could be selectively edited or taken out of context, creating unnecessary turmoil.
Members of the public can already apply to attend court hearings. Anyone interested in understanding how court proceedings work are free to apply to observe a trial. Broadcasting court proceedings live would do nothing to improve judicial transparency.
Moreover, with the rapid development of modern technology, it is possible for live footage to be doctored. That could transform a trial into a spectacle with unpredictable consequences. It would not only exponentially increase the pressure and costs for all parties involved in a lawsuit, but could also influence testimonies by witnesses and experts. Such measures would be detrimental to all parties involved — lawyers, prosecutors, defendants and plaintiffs on both sides of a case — and for the court as a whole.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS