When Everyone Says "He Deserves to Die," the Rule of Law Becomes Even More Crucial

While Cheng Chieh is held in custody awaiting trial, his communications have not been prohibited; however, his intentions remain unclear, and news from friends and family is limited. Yet, media outlets break "newscasts" every other day—reporting one moment that he received a family letter, and the next that he wrote to ask his parents to find a lawyer. It was even claimed that the Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation (TRTR) is seeking 20 million NTD in damages, and that Cheng filed a statement refusing to pay. The Taipei Detention Center is the most likely source of these leaks, implicitly signaling that they are "disciplining" Cheng.

Cheng Chieh committed a crime with clear and conclusive evidence, and everyone says he deserves to die. Under this atmosphere, the Taipei Detention Center seems to enjoy a "very high level of public support," treating him as private property to be handled however they please. After all, he has given up his own life, his parents are powerless, and in society, legislators are leading the charge to demand a "speedy trial and a speedy conclusion" (with "speedy death" unspoken on their lips). No one values his life, so the detention center not taking his right to communicate seriously seems, to some, to be only natural.

The Detention Center's Unconscious Infringement on the Right to Communicate

However, these are merely expressions of a naive sense of justice. Ordinary laypeople may speak and think this way, but the detention center ultimately represents the state and is an administrative organ; administering the law in accordance with the law is the most basic requirement. Cheng Chieh has not been prohibited from communicating, meaning he still enjoys the right to communicate with the outside world. At most, the detention center may conduct formal inspections for security purposes, but it cannot read the contents of his communications. Otherwise, what the detention center is committing is a criminal offense, far more serious than "illegal administration."

According to Article 315 of the Criminal Code, it is prohibited for anyone to "without cause open, seal... or inspect the sealed letters of another." Article 312 also contains provisions regarding the crime of divulging secrets. Furthermore, referring to Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act: "Communications referred to in this Act are defined as... 2. Mail and letters." For violators, Article 19 stipulates civil liability, Article 22 provides that the state also bears responsibility, and Article 24 even prescribes a prison sentence of up to five years.

Defendants Enjoy the Protection of the "Presumption of Innocence"

Despite these extensive penal provisions, the detention center clearly never gave them a single thought. The reason for this lies in our country's historical failure to value the "principle of presumption of innocence." Once any person is detained, their status immediately reduces to that of a "convict." Regardless of whether the prosecutor will indict them or whether the court might still hand down an acquittal, entering a "detention center" is treated as equivalent to entering a "prison"—their status becomes the same, and their treatment becomes the same.

Therefore, even if there is a conceptual understanding that a distinction must be made between a "convict" and a "defendant," in practice, detention facilities frequently overlook this difference. After all, detention centers are often built right next to prisons, and the civil servants working inside are the exact same group of people. Legal provisions and requirements are treated merely as references; as long as no major scandals break out, no one cares—especially in a case like Cheng Chieh's, where even fewer people are inclined to care.

Consequently, Article 66 of the Enforcement Rules of the Prison Act, which states that "the sending and receiving of letters shall be inspected by prison authorities," clearly targets convicts, yet detention centers may "automatically apply by analogy" these rules to defendants, completely ignoring the fact that for defendants in detention centers, the governing law should primarily be the Detention Act. Article 27-1 of the Detention Act stipulates that "a defendant may send and receive letters with anyone," which indicates that defendants enjoy the right to communication as a general rule. Moreover, with Article 28 having been deleted, it means that the contents of a defendant's letters are no longer subject to inspection by facility authorities unless there is a legal basis to do so.

Mencius Understood Human Nature, Not the Rule of Law

Cheng Chieh's case is merely the tip of the iceberg. Whenever major cases occur, the media is frequently able to obtain insider information from detention centers. Aside from the potential violation of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations, this also implicates infringements upon the defendant's right to privacy. In short, a defendant has not yet been convicted, and unless there are explicit statutory restrictions, their basic rights cannot be arbitrarily and presumptively stripped away. The more people shout that someone "deserves to die," the more cautious and rigorous procedural safeguards must be.

Mencius lacked a conception of the rule of law, but his philosophy on employing and executing people was: "If those around you all say he deserves to be killed, do not listen; if your great officers all say he deserves to be killed, do not listen; if the people of the state all say he deserves to be killed, then examine the matter, and upon seeing that he truly deserves to be killed, execute him." In plain terms: Even if the people around you say so, and officials and ministers all say so, absolutely do not listen. Only when everyone under heaven says so, and after you have carefully analyzed and observed the matter yourself, should you make a decision.

Even as far back as Mencius, people understood the importance of looking beyond popular sentiment trends. Beyond public support, one must still carefully analyze and observe rather than follow the crowd blindly and act purely on intuition. The rule of law is frequently counter-intuitive and goes against prevailing herd mentality because it represents the accumulated experiential lessons of human errors throughout history, crystallized into layers upon layers of substantive rights and procedural requirements. Humanity's most precious lesson learned through error is this: The harder it is to restrain human nature, the more strictly one must adhere to the rule of law.