There is a belief that the judiciary is the last line of defense for justice. By that same logic, judges are the judiciary’s last line of defense, but is that line “impregnable”?
The judicial system has had its fair share of “dinosaur judges,” a nickname bestowed upon judges considered to be biased with outdated ideas and questionable attitudes.
In a case about the alleged sexual assault of a six-year-old, a judge imposed only a light punishment on the defendant, stating in their verdict that “the act was not against the girl’s will.”
In another case, a defendant was exonerated because, according to the judge’s peculiar reasoning, “groping someone’s breasts for 10 seconds does not constitute sexual assault.”
Some judges speak loudly or harshly, while others mock trial participants and attorneys. It would be a waste of time to censure the overweening, flamboyant behavior and abuses of power of arrogant judges, who are convinced of their own inherent superiority.
Instead, focus on the judges willing to “interpret” and distort legislation and regulations as they see fit.
Such judges either rely on their own subjective interpretations or apply double standards in their rulings.
Last month, the Taipei District Court acquitted the New Party’s Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) and fellow party members who were accused of recruiting people to develop a Chinese spy network in Taiwan on behalf of Chinese student Zhou Hongxu (周泓旭).
The acquittal was based on the reasoning that the court could not prove that the defendants posed a “clear and immediate danger” to national security.
This month, the High Court upheld the acquittal on the basis that, while Wang and others promoted events through Wang’s Web site, Fire News, and other organizations to attract supporters who share the New Party’s “peaceful unification” vision, and even though Zhou collected names of certain organizations and information on their staff through New Party member Lin Ming-cheng (林明正), Zhou did not commit any acts of recruitment or enlistment on behalf of an enemy, and therefore cannot be determined to have undermined national security.
The idea that a spy network for the Chinese Communist Party in its initial stages does not present an “immediate and apparent,” threat, let alone undermine national security, and that, as a result, the reason for acquittal for the espionage case “cannot be determined as having undermined national security,” is ludicrous and pernicious.
Based on the logic of the rulings, gang members concealing firearms could be considered as not posing an “immediate and apparent” threat or “undermining social order” if they did not open fire.
Few would argue that it would make sense for a judge to acquit gang members based on this reasoning.
If cohorts like Wang — who appeared to be collecting information on people and providing a foreign spy with names of local organizations — cannot be seen as aiding the enemy, who can?
The Taipei District Court and High Court both referred to national security in the foundation of their rulings, but so far the definition for undermining national security seems to be based on a judge’s subjective ruling rather than objective criteria.
Judges who give lenient punishment to those engaged in espionage or quasi-espionage are nothing but another type of “dinosaur judge” misusing the power invested in them.
When it comes to corruption cases, judges often have inconsistent interpretations of public officials’ legally defined powers and actual influence.
In 2006, the legislature approved an amendment to the Criminal Code that set standards to more precisely determe which public officials could be accused of taking bribes based on their legally defined powers.
Nevertheless, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was dissatisfied when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was found not guilty in his trial of first instance on corruption charges related to a second round of financial reforms in 2010.
Ma summoned the president and vice president of the court for a meeting, two days after which the Supreme Court changed its ruling, and, departing from the interpretation that had stood unchanged for the previous 50 years, concocted the notion of “actual influence.”
This altered definition was clearly tailor-made for Chen. As a result of this unlawful and unconstitutional distortion of the law, Chen was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
On the other hand, in the trial of former legislator and Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) for corruption in 2013, the Taipei District Court found him not guilty by backtracking to the conventional interpretation that Lin had “no legally defined powers,” while setting aside the earlier interpretation of “actual influence.”
In another case, the same judge who handled Chen’s case, Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), acquitted Ma of allegedly embezzling NT$11 million (US$374,787 at the current exchange rate) from his special mayoral allowance during his eight years as Taipei mayor.
Tsai’s verdict described in great detail the history and evolution of the allowance. It even referred to public funds during the Song Dynasty in China, as if the Taipei mayoral allowance originated from it. The ruling explained at great length that the allowance is a substantial subsidy for government officials.
Nevertheless, when judging Chen’s corruption and money laundering trial, Tsai adopted a different standard and handed him a life sentence instead.
These are blatant displays of double standards and cases ruled in accordance to a judge’s preferences.
There is ideology at work behind every verdict made by “dinosaur judges.” As judges possess absolute power to rule according to their subjective judgement, and even have the “protection” of life tenure, how do we prevent them from corrupting the system?
Who judges the judges?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Rita Wang
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
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS