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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS