Upholding the Police Through the Rule of Law is True Dignity

The ferocious scene of someone attacking a police officer with a cleaver shocked Taiwanese society. With the evidence so clear, after the suspect was transferred and a detention request was filed with the judge, the suspect was initially released on bail upon walking out of the courthouse, causing a public outcry. The judge was blasted by the entire public, and this time even the Chief Prosecutor joined the ranks. The fragile judiciary suffered another heavy blow.
Supporting the police is the right thing to do; no one should be treated so brutally, let alone police officers who wear uniforms and symbolize public authority. However, the tension between the judiciary and the police sparked by this series of events is worth pondering calmly after the agitation subsides, regarding how the line of the rule of law should be drawn.
First, of course, is the issue of detention. Detention has two criteria: Will the suspect flee? Will they destroy evidence? The footage has already been exposed, the crime is clear, and there is no issue of destroying evidence; the only remaining consideration is whether there is a flight risk. The judge felt there was none, which is his judgment. We can respect it, and we can criticize it—this is a matter subject to public comment. Criticizing the judge from this perspective is lawful and proper.

Do Not Let Detention Bear the Function of Trial

Unfortunately, the initial criticism of the judge was hardly fair. No one would object to demanding "respect for the police," but this is not a legal requirement for detention. If a judge were truly to "support" anyone to the point of ignoring the law, that is what we should fear. Especially since the Chief Prosecutor is someone who understands the law, uttering words like "the judge is unfeeling" is extremely disappointing.
At the end of the day, our judicial proceedings are protracted, justice often arrives late, detention procedures are easily abused, and prosecutors often treat a "successful detention" as the precursor to a "guilty verdict." Past erroneous practices have given the public the illusion that "killing a police officer can be settled for 300,000 NTD." However, detention is detention, and trial is trial; the two systems are different. Unless we believe that under circumstances where "evidence is clear," trials can be canceled and detention can directly lead to conviction and sentencing. Otherwise, detention should not be allowed to bear the function of a trial.
Secondly, different judges may produce different judgments, and inconsistent interpretations will damage the image of a "fair court," thus requiring complementary systems. If a prosecutor is dissatisfied with the denial of detention, they can file an interlocutory appeal and ask a higher instance to review it. If this case had been detained after an appeal, the judiciary might have saved a bit of face.
However, if prosecutors hastily request detention once again, it creates an effect of "forum shopping." Even if there is no obvious illegality, it lets people witness prosecutors willing to sacrifice the image of a fair court to achieve their goal—hurting others as well as themselves. Furthermore, it avoids questioning whether the re-detention was lawful? Whether the grounds for requesting detention were far-fetched? Or even whether the leakage of the video violated the principle of investigation confidentiality.

Maintaining the Image of Professionalism and the Rule of Law

Finally, and most worryingly, the case evolved into a confrontation between the judiciary and the police, obscuring the solutions to structural problems. In this case, it was merely that the police officers were not carrying firearms; otherwise, even if they had shot and killed the suspect, there would have been nothing illegal about it. The wording of the *Police Power Enforcement Act* is dead, but frontline law enforcement is ever-changing, and on-the-spot reactions are alive.
The difficulty lies in the inevitability of ambiguous situations, where the subsequent mess is entirely borne by individual police officers rather than resolved through a fund or insurance mechanism, which is already inadequate. Coupled with the lingering judicial bad habit of "using criminal charges to coerce civil settlements," police officers naturally feel aggrieved.
Rank-and-file police officers should strive for their own rights by organizing a union, reducing unreasonable duty assignments, and increasing professional skills. Maintaining the image of professionalism and the rule of law to earn the people's respect is the way to uphold dignity. Difficult times reveal integrity, and crises reveal loyalty and sincerity. We believe that police officers who defend the law and pursue dignity would also disdain foolish support that transcends the boundaries of the rule of law. Every major incident is a moment that tests the rule of law.

 

※This article was also published in Apple Daily, Aug. 6, 2016