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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS