Will Wei Ying-ch'ung Actually Run Away?

Wei Ying-ch'ung was granted bail again after another detention hearing, though the bail amount was tripled to NT$300 million. Judges releasing him undoubtedly face immense pressure, as Ting Hsin is currently a public enemy and has close ties with the Kuomintang. The public not only wants to "destroy Ting Hsin," but also to overthrow the Kuomintang. The judges strictly adhered to the boundaries of human rights and even "educated" the media, hoping to avoid distorted reporting. Whether the prosecutors continue to appeal and stage another judicial farce like the "five-round" saga of Chang Te-cheng—who drove a truck into the Presidential Office—remains to be seen.

Causes of the Detention Farce

Our judiciary is not entirely spineless; rather, past experiences have left the public unhappy. When encountering high-ranking officials and elites, the judiciary automatically shrinks; when dealing with ordinary citizens, it shows no mercy. Chang Te-cheng remains fresh in people's memories, and if prosecutors do not "follow suit" and surpass the "Five Lights Award" with a "Sixth Lights Award," they will likely be accused of double standards first.

Regardless of whether detention is ordered, an appeal can certainly be made. However, the speed of such appeals has also drawn public skepticism. Why were they in such a frantic rush for Chang Te-cheng, yet acted like a slowpoke for Wei Ying-ch'ung? If this is not the difference between the "privileged and the common folk," could it be that Taipei and Changhua are operating under "one country, two systems"?

Actually, the intent behind "immediate appeal" is not bad, because detention inherently cannot be dragged out. If there is fear of flight or evidence destruction, detain them. If they are detained and then released, the person runs away and the evidence is gone, making any subsequent detention meaningless. If detention is unwarranted, release the person. If a defendant has done nothing wrong yet is repeatedly released and detained, they will also find the judiciary incomprehensible.

The court must make a decision as quickly as possible to avoid dragging out a "bad show"; this is the purpose of an "immediate appeal." However, the procedure must be fair, and it must apply equally to both prosecutors and defendants. Proceedings must be swift so as not to violate the 24-hour limit on personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

Therefore, where the court handling the appeal is located is also a matter of strategy. Handling it within the same court is more conducive to efficiency, but under normal circumstances, it may be difficult to overturn a colleague's decision, rendering the appeal virtually meaningless—unless judges strictly uphold the law regardless of personal ties.

A higher appellate court does not necessarily lack the issue of peer solidarity, but the efficiency of transmitting case files and evidence back and forth is lower. If it is not proactive enough, it easily violates the principle that detention "demands swiftness." This is why Chang Te-cheng's detention turned into a judicial farce. A procedure that should have been fast bounced back and forth like a tennis match for five rounds simply because the High Court dared not make its own ruling.

The Public Is Simply Afraid Wei Ying-ch'ung Will Run

After all is said and done, our Code of Criminal Procedure  actually contains no explicit provisions for an "immediate appeal." It is merely a set of operational guidelines issued by the Judicial Yuan for judges and prosecutors to "use as reference." Judicial personnel move as fast or as slow as they please. Mayor Ko's words capture it vividly: "Everything is legal, but social perception is poor."

In practice, district court judges are generally more steadfast in defending the bottom line of human rights and apply detention strictly. Many High Court judges lived through the era of "detention to extort confessions" and tend to apply detention more leniently. This implies a generational ideological conflict within the courts; exercising detention with caution better aligns with the rule of law and human rights.

In fact, as we stumbled along in using bail as an alternative to detention, we still have the "Wu Tse-yuan Clause" under Article 116-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the court to reinforce it. To put it bluntly, everyone is simply afraid Wei Ying-ch'ung will run away. To him, 300 million is merely a drop in the bucket that he wouldn't even feel; judges perhaps ought to devise more powerful methods.

An irresponsible suggestion from internet netizens: for instance, mandating that his private jet must report to the court upon takeoff and landing, or requiring his supportive siblings to issue a joint guarantee, etc. Strengthening binding forces other than money will dash Wei Ying-ch'ung's thoughts of fleeing so that he can properly face justice and love Taiwan.