Taiwan’s first trial with the participation of “citizen judges” began on Tuesday at the New Taipei City District Court, and the verdict was quickly delivered on Friday, opening a new chapter in the nation’s judicial system while inevitably bringing new problems and challenges.
On Monday, the court completed the selection of citizen judges by picking six citizen judges and four alternate judges from the 57 prospective judges present. For the selection, what deserves greater attention is the rejection rate of candidates who were legally notified of their candidacy, especially the percentage of those who did not respond.
Article 99, Paragraph 2 of the Citizen Judges Act (國民法官法) states that a prospective citizen judge may be fined not more than NT$30,000 for “being absent on the citizen judges selection date without a justifiable reason after having been lawfully summoned.” The court would not easily impose a fine when the citizen judge system is newly established.
However, the citizen judge selection might be too narrow if candidates’ rejection rate is too high, thus contravening the principle of universality.
Next, since trials with citizen judges must proceed in a concentrated and efficient manner, the period of each trial is three days.
However, the Citizen Judges Act adopts the “indictment-only” principle, meaning that to prevent any pretrial judgement, prosecutors only submit the indictment, without the evidence, to the court when he indicts someone.
However, this also means that all the content and evidence of the case can only be presented during the three-day trial period. How citizen judges, who sit on the judgement seats for the first time in their lives, can quickly absorb the evidence presented by prosecutors and the defense, and the statements made by the witnesses and expert witnesses in just three days is a serious issue.
In the case before the New Taipei City District Court — which involved a Taiwanese wife who killed her husband saying that he had abused her — it was necessary to consider whether the wife who had been allegedly abused for years really had the “capacity for responsibility” for her action at the time of the act.
Since this difficult task involved a forensic psychiatric evaluation, it was a big challenge for citizen judges to quickly grasp the information and determine the wife’s criminal responsibility quickly. Under such circumstances, the prosecutor, lawyer and even experts should present the difficult legal terms and relevant professional knowledge in a simple way to be understood by citizen judges.
Lastly, the judges’ final deliberation after the final argument in court might be an even greater challenge. During the first three years of the implementation of the Citizen Judges Act, trials involving citizen judges are to be limited to certain categories, including cases “where the accused has intentionally committed an offense that caused death.” So the jury is often to face the crimes of intentional homicide in trials. For such crimes, the argument lies in whether the defendant has the “capacity of responsibility” and whether to impose the death penalty. In terms of a verdict of guilty or a decision of death penalty, it is rendered “by the approval of the tribunal with a two-thirds majority, including at least one judge and one citizen judge.”
However, with three judges and six citizen judges deliberating together, and with the former having the exclusive authority of legal interpretation, how can we strike a balance between professional legal assistance and independence of citizen judges’ judgement, so as to prevent them from becoming rubber stamps? This is an critical test for judicial reform.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate law professor at Aletheia University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS