Was It Wrong for a Judge to Order a Defendant to Write Essays?

When a defendant in a police-killing case was granted bail and ordered by the judge to write essays, it drew considerable mockery. In fact, the judge's attempt to introduce restorative justice—even commissioning the Graduate School of Criminology at National Taipei University to propose an execution plan and a list of participants—is highly commendable. Naturally, media reports approached the matter from various angles. Taiwanese society is most accustomed to polarizing defendants and victims. Anyone with personal experience knows that the voices of defendants and victims are often usurped by the media. The media has already established a preconceived framework and context; the articles are written, and the videos are prepared. They simply wait to capture the voices, images, and facial expressions of the defendant or victim, which are then filtered, edited, and plugged into the blank spaces of print reports or embedded into the segments of electronic video. Consequently, the defendant is always depicted with head bowed in silence, showing no remorse. The victim is always depicted in tears, filled with grief and indignation.

This perspective is not entirely without merit. However, when over-operated and intensified, it produces the effects of stigmatization, suffocation, and oppression. The defendant is reduced to a single, monotonous image: pure evil. The victim is restricted to a single, standardized reaction: bitter suffering. This obscures other possibilities, compresses the space for alternative outcomes, and pressures the judiciary into half-hearted compliance—inflicting severe punishment to console the victim (as played by the public). Violence upon violence, tearing upon tearing; if the judiciary dares show a shred of mercy, it is treated as a betrayal of the victim, leaving it only to whisper gloomily and mutter to itself.

Restorative Justice Requires a Creative Court

The judge set twenty essay topics and required the defendant to complete all of them within a month. This can be considered creative, as no one has ever done this before. In the conservative judicial circle, this is bound to attract sideways glances—following the mindset that doing less means making fewer mistakes, and that closing the case quickly is best. From another perspective, however, writing is often a process of self-healing and may not be such a bad thing.

The key lies in the role played by the judge. The focal point of restorative justice is placed on the victim, or more accurately, centers on the relationship between the victim and the offender. During the restorative process, the judge may handle it personally or delegate it to other more suitable experts.

Amidst an atmosphere of mutual consent, a comfortable and warm environment, and a relationship of equality and mutual trust, gradual reconciliation can take place, achieving the state of relationship repair. This is a more proactive and forward-looking judicial system. The reason for doing so is precisely to alter the situation in traditional judicial proceedings where victims are neglected and offenders are treated merely as objects of punishment.

These two individuals, who ought to be the central figures in judicial proceedings, are instead absurdly monopolized, neglected, and left to the disposal of judicial authorities. We give our utmost positive affirmation and expectations to judges who are willing to introduce restorative justice. However, we must also remind ourselves that our country remains unfamiliar with this system, and judges are mostly accustomed to a paternalistic, authoritarian style that is fundamentally incompatible with a restorative process that emphasizes equality. If a judge wishes to enter the restorative process, they must lay aside their patriarchal posture and become a friend—that is the only way to begin well.

Restorative Justice is Worth Striving For

Therefore, we look forward to the team from National Taipei University presenting a plan that is both forward-looking and executable, and—with the open-minded and comprehensive cooperation of judicial administration—fostering a brand-new atmosphere. In particular, since this case involves many participants, comprehensive restoration will inevitably take time; patience and perseverance are basic requirements.

Furthermore, because the media is accustomed to focusing its attention on specific individuals, it easily amplifies responsibility and creates inequality, or demonizes individuals, worsening the situation and making relationships difficult to repair. Resisting stereotyped public opinion pressure requires wisdom and courage. Especially for a judiciary that has long suffered from extremely low public trust, it takes the courage to press forward even if millions stand against us, while also maintaining the flexible demeanor needed to patiently explain and elaborate.

Both victims and offenders can perhaps enter this process accompanied by a group of people and relationships rather than standing entirely alone. Through dialogue, they can gradually repair relationships that have been harmed. We believe that if this can be successfully implemented, it will mark a new milestone for Taiwan's judiciary.

At the same time, we also hope that Taiwan can gradually develop restorative justice with local characteristics, progressively replacing a hateful judiciary driven by verbal abuse and attacks.