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system has had its fair share of “dinosaur judges,” a nickname bestowed upon judges considered to be biased with outdated ideas and questionable attitudes.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
Source: Taipei Times - Editorials 2022/05/29
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
