A FEW DAYS ago, the Council of Grand Justices handed down constitutional interpretation No. 653. In it, they demanded that the government “review and amend the Detention Act (羈押法) and related regulations, and establish appropriate regulations for a litigation system for prompt and effective relief for detained defendants.”
In other words, this interpretation declares that in the future, prisons, detention houses and other places that are less strictly regulated by law will no longer be dark places lacking human rights protection.
In light of the attention and public criticism heaped on the detentions of many politicians recently, the grand justices’ interpretation may be hard advice for the authorities to take, but it is said that criminal procedure is a constitutional touchstone that also highlights how civilized a society is. There is indeed room for review and improvement on Taiwan’s detention system and its language.
While the facts of a case are still under investigation, Taiwanese law authorizes state institutions to temporarily restrict the individual freedom of suspects. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights state that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. According to the Council of Grand Justices’ reasoning: “If a defendant in a criminal case is detained, he or she will de separated from family, society and professional life. This will be a heavy psychological blow to the defendant and it will also have a big impact on his or her individual reputation, credibility and other individual rights. It constitutes the most forceful restriction of individual freedom and must as a matter of course only be used as a last resort.”
In other words, it might be necessary to restrict a person’s freedom prior to the trial process, but there must be legitimate grounds.
Compared to the Japanese and US systems, there is room for Taiwan to improve its detention regulations for major crimes. Determining whether or not to detain someone based on the severity of the crime is tantamount to reviving the medieval practice of punishment based on suspicion in that a suspect is detained merely based on the subjective judgment of the investigating authorities. This is rash and careless and violates two key principles that procedural justice demands -- presumed innocence and that verdicts be based on evidence.
According to the intent of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 43/173 on Dec. 9, 1988, if a suspect is detained because his or her deposition differs from the direction of the investigation, the investigating authority is abusing its power in violation of the law and is infringing on fundamental human rights.
Because of this, and to be able to put an end to the judicial authorities’ prejudiced use of the term “detention” to obtain a confession, and to implement the Council of Grand Justices’ constitutional interpretation No. 392 issued on Dec. 22, 1995, which says that arrest and detention “differ only in terms of purpose of action, method used and length of period,” the current use of the term “detention” should be changed to “arrest” to restore the original intent of holding someone after arrest.
If we want to follow the international community in its protection of human rights, the law must be amended so that prosecutorial rights to restrict someone’s individual freedom through arrest should be returned to the courts together with the right to order searches and audio surveillance.
Lin Yu-shun is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Investigation at Central Police University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
RSS