When the Scorching Sun of Justice Burns

"The scorching sun and the autumn frost" is the emblem of Japanese prosecutors. One interpretation is that the scorching sun represents the formidable power of prosecutors, while the autumn frost signifies the vulnerability of ordinary citizens. When the scorching sun emerges, the autumn frost melts and vanishes. This serves as a reminder to prosecutors to wield their power with caution, for even the slightest carelessness can inflict severe harm upon the people.

Recently, the JRF launched the "Judicial Sunshine Net." In the days since, criticisms from the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice have been unrelenting, with judges and prosecutors vying to denounce the platform as if the entire judicial system were under a terrorist attack, on the verge of total collapse. In an instant, the judicial system—armed with public authority—found itself likened to fragile autumn frost, while civil society organizations stood like the scorching sun, their roles inverted. How did things come to this?

One perspective is that, over the past twenty years, the JRF has indeed accumulated considerable influence. Another viewpoint suggests that the JRF is hardly so omnipotent; rather, it merely serves as an outlet for the public's dissatisfaction with the judiciary, where the people will steadfastly support any action that might possibly reform it. Consequently, regardless of whether it is viewed as a source of influence or an outlet, the most intuitive reaction has been to attack the "Judicial Reform Foundation"—treating it like a punching bag and wishing for its swift eradication, seeing it as the ultimate "troublemaker" for all things judicial. After all, over the past two decades, the JRF has consistently posed difficult challenges to the judicial system, making judicial personnel swallow bitter pills. Now, old grievances and new scores are being settled all at once. The Ministry of Justice's arbitrary interpretation of the Personal Data Protection Act provisions, its hasty demand to take the website down, and even its threats of taking more drastic legal action serve as a classic example of this.

Another viewpoint stems from a legacy of fragile trust, or perhaps simply because the legal circle is relatively small, with friends mutually acquainted. People inquire after one another, express condolences, convey sympathetic understanding, and offer possible explanations. Consequently, some attribute the controversy to generational differences among decision-makers, projecting this onto Taiwan's broader social environment and the currently debated issue of generational injustice. They argue that the JRF's decision-makers still adhere to the radical, confrontational path of the authoritarian era of justice—an approach deemed anachronistic. Others point to the risks of insular decision-making, suggesting the introduction of more diverse perspectives and roles. Beyond these, a more moderate stance holds that one need only look to foreign practices to see that there is indeed a necessity to disclose information regarding judges and prosecutors. As for the specific content and extent of such disclosures, there may still be room for discussion.

Paradigmatic Thinking in the Internet Era

Aside from the frantic, old-school authoritarian mindset that threatens to "take down the site and prosecute," other analyses are reasonable. Yet, they do not constitute the whole truth. Of course, accepting and understanding the "truth" to be discussed next requires a foundation of mutual trust. Perhaps this is precisely where the Judicial Reform Foundation and members of the official judiciary still have ample room for effort.

The most crucial value choice underlying the tug-of-war in this entire incident actually stems from a conflict between the principles espoused by "netizens" and those of the traditional "non-netizen" demographic. This represents a clash of different "paradigmatic thinking." Netizens pursue abundant data, presented with both pros and cons, where errors are instantly corrected and all forms of censorship are rejected. Judicial personnel's demands upon a civil society group like the JRF often unconsciously approach the standards applied to the "official" Judicial Yuan. This is why they demand that the accuracy of information on the "Judicial Sunshine Net" be treated almost with the rigor of legal documents. Of course, viewed positively, this is an honor reflecting high expectations of the JRF; it is simply that the operational logic of the internet world operates under a different mindset.

For example, the most common accusation is that the content of the "Judicial Sunshine Net" is "full of errors" and extremely crude and simplistic. Furthermore, what concerns judicial personnel the most is the targeted publication of reward and punishment records, which they feel risks severely tarnishing the image of judicial personnel. Coupled with links to news reports, they argue that individual-centric reward and punishment records and fragmentary news reports fail to present the "overall evaluation" of individual judicial personnel. These are all "incidental" facts and cannot represent an individual's "habitual" conduct.

In short, opposing opinions contend that such information is not only "erroneous" but also "toxic," leading the public to form "misconceptions" about the image of individual judges and prosecutors because these information pieces fail to present a complete portrait of them. Moreover, because there is too much "unnecessary" negative information, it further "destroys" the sacredness of the judiciary as a whole—a sacred sense of honor that is indispensable for the state to maintain the judicial system.

However, netizens think rather differently and even harbor a strong aversion to this mindset. They are full of enthusiasm for acquiring information and believe that all public information should be maximized in its presentation. Positive or negative information matters not; no one is qualified to decide for them what constitutes good or bad information. If any party holds a different opinion, what should be provided is a platform where various opinions can be fully expressed and counter-argued, rather than canceling one side's speech. They are the ultimate arbiters of data, the "masters" who make independent judgments based on information.

In fact, it is as simple as that. Under these two different modes of thinking, the JRF adopted a rather "unrestrained netizen-style" decision-making approach. There was no preconceived notion of pursuing a "confrontational path," nor was there any intention to stigmatize the judiciary. However, perhaps we overlooked the fact that the "JRF" carries a certain image of legal professionalism; after all, unlike a BBS forum where a board can be opened for everyone to speak freely and without taboos, inaccuracies in information will be scrutinized, the introduction of sensational news will be criticized, and the use of comic styles will be attacked.

The True Dilemma of Judicial Reform

Nevertheless, the hardest barrier to break through is likely the mutual suspicion between people. Numerous "over-the-line" remarks have emerged one after another, turning into mutual attacks and ultimately obscuring the possibility of realizing "judicial sunshine." Even more distressing is what a senior figure within the judicial circle once told me, which essentially boils down to this: when you at the JRF attack one person, three excellent ones leave while the rotten ones remain completely untouched; after criticizing a bunch, you end up offending reform-minded (potential) friends, while the anti-reform elements hide in the background and hurl anonymous abuse.

This remark gave me pause for thought for a long time. It is highly likely that those "fighting" are the ones with a reformist consciousness, while those "hiding" are the ones in actual need of reform. Of course, standing a bit further outside, we can absorb the pain of the people scorched by the judiciary and confront the entire judicial system head-on; alternatively, standing a bit further inside, we might need to empathize with the structural pressures faced by judicial personnel within the system, deftly uniting with appropriate allies to challenge the people and matters that ought to be challenged at the right time. Finding the right balance in all of this is perhaps the true dilemma of judicial reform.