A few days after seeing Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) handcuffed, we saw former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) also cuffed. Chen has repeatedly disappointed me, but as someone who teaches the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), I feel I must express some viewpoints based solely on the law.
Let us first not focus on whether the detention of Chen was in line with actual requirements for detention or whether it was really necessary.
Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states clearly that, “In executing an arrest with or without a warrant, due care shall be taken of the person and reputation of the accused.”
Article 90 states: “If the accused resists the arrest made with or without a warrant or if he escapes, he may be arrested by force with or without a warrant, but such force may not be excessive.”
Therefore, handcuffing the accused should be based on necessity, which should be ascertained by looking at whether the accused might resist arrest or attempt to escape.
When prosecutors requested that Chen be placed in detention, his freedom of movement had already been greatly reduced. It is hard to imagine how he would have been able to escape and destroy evidence while under the watch of so many people.
I cannot fathom how it would be necessary to place Chen in handcuffs, unless, of course, he was so skilled in the martial arts that he could escape the large number of police officers watching him.
If the police and investigative authorities feel that handcuffing Chen was just routine practice, then this was not an isolated incident but rather it highlighted a human rights problem that is being routinely overlooked.
Director and spokesman of the Special Investigation Panel Chen Yun-nan (陳雲南) said that based on rules and regulations of the Taiwan High Court and the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office, suspects of serious crimes must be handcuffed and even shackled when necessary.
This, however, completely ignores the intent of the constitutionally enshrined principle of proportionality as it should apply to coercive measures. Chen Yun-nan’s comments also show that he lacks basic constitutional knowledge: Administrative orders should be invalidated when they violate a law or the Constitution. His comments also show that he does not understand the principle of presumed innocence.
Coercive measures by police and prosecutorial authorities violate the basic rights of citizens. Handcuffing a suspect should be treated as violence in the sense that it is used in Article 304 of the Criminal Code, which deals with coercion, as it restricts the freedom of the suspect.
The use of coercive force by police and prosecutorial authorities must be in accord with the Code of Criminal Procedure. If their actions constitute illegal use of force, I am not sure whether prosecutors with judicial qualifications should use Article 16 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to “ignorance of the law,” to reduce the legal responsibility of the authorities involved in the arrest.
It is the duty of police and prosecutorial authorities and the responsibility of the state to prosecute those guilty of crimes, but they must respect the law and the principles of basic human rights. The historic photos of Chen Shui-bian raising his cuffed hands will force us to rethink the basic human rights of suspects in criminal cases in Taiwan.
Hsu Tze-tien is an associate professor of law at National Cheng Kung University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS