Protecting Human Rights: The Judiciary Should Reflect

The China Times report on the wrongful conviction of the murderer in the Peng Shao-chin case has drawn public attention. The author believes this case merits reflection by the public and the judicial practice sector in at least three respects:

First, the failure to thoroughly implement the evidentiary rule of "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused): The principle of in dubio pro reo dictates that judges ought to consider evidence both favorable and unfavorable to the defendant. If evidence still reveals numerous doubts and cannot fully prove that the defendant is the perpetrator, the judge should uphold the concept of human rights protection and issue an acquittal in favor of the defendant.

However, this principle was not put into practice in this case. The victim denied from the very beginning of the incident that Lin Chin-chan was the perpetrator. Furthermore, because the defendant's confession conflicted with the facts in many ways, and the victim filed an appeal on the grounds that "the defendant is not the true perpetrator," it took ten years and thirty-six judges before an acquittal was rendered at the fourth retrial. One must ask, how many decades does a person have in a lifetime?

Second, the myth of "confession" as evidence: Taiwan's judicial practice is influenced by traditional Chinese penal systems, leading police investigators to place undue importance on defendants admitting to criminal facts rather than emphasizing scientific evidence collection and investigative techniques. As a result, much of the evidence forwarded by the police consists of defendants admitting to offenses, only for them to later deny the validity of these confessions in court. Judicial practice should no longer solely seek the acquisition of "confessions" while neglecting other scientific investigative methods.

Third, the reform of "cross-examination" deserves affirmation: Three years ago, Taiwan's criminal procedure system implemented cross-examination, which sparked a backlash in judicial practice due to insufficient human resources. However, truth only becomes clearer through debate. Taking Americans as an example, cross-examination is an expression of democratic principles. Not only in the legislature, but within judicial and administrative agencies as well, hearings involving bilateral debate are held for policies or individual cases, allowing both sides to express their views before a final decision is rendered by the presiding official. This is the process of forming consensus through democratic debate. If Taiwan wishes to realize democracy, it must begin by respecting the right of others to express their opinions.

The third retrial of this case adopted the new system. Perhaps the operation of the new system was not yet flexible enough; it is hoped that in the future, administrative and judicial agencies will more thoroughly implement hearing and cross-examination procedures, rooting democratization deeply in people's hearts.

※ Published in: China Times / Forum