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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS