The Despairing Script of the "Upright Magistrate"

According to news reports, the judge presiding over the Bali double-homicide case handed the defendant a copy of "Fighting for Despair" during the preparatory proceedings, expressing the hope that the defendant would "gain some insight" after reading it. The judge stated, "The defendant's 'mind is too complicated, and I don't know whether to believe words that took a long time to think up.'" The judge also asked, "If you want to bring justice to the victims' families as soon as possible, why did you appeal?" Finally, the judge remarked, "I hope to conclude the trial and deliver the verdict before the Lunar New Year.

Morality Obstructing Procedural Justice

Internet users often use the term "righteousness troll" to describe individuals who forcefully impose their high moral standards on others, criticizing or attacking anyone who fails to meet them. Everyone possesses a sense of justice, but the trouble is that no two people's sense of justice is entirely alike; otherwise, the philosopher John Rawls would not have had to spend a lifetime pondering the matter to write his monumental work, "A Theory of Justice." What is even more troublesome is that judges exercise independent adjudication in accordance with the law. If they allow their inner sense of morality to run rampant, it will not only infringe upon the parties' right to litigation, but more seriously, erode the nation's foundation of the rule of law.

By law, the death penalty is a legal punishment in our country, and whether or not to impose it falls within the authority of the judge. By law, determining whether an act constitutes the "most serious crime" requires investigating evidence and conducting oral arguments to assess the severity of the offense. At the same time, sentencing investigations and sentencing arguments must be carried out to determine the most appropriate penalty. Ultimately, whichever result is reached constitutes an independent judgment rendered in accordance with the law.

If one possesses an elevated sense of morality and justice while also wishing to act as a guru guiding others through life's perplexities, then one is unsuited for work within a courtroom. A judge must suppress the moral perspective within their own personality; otherwise, they easily become fixated on their own "ideal world," turning legal adjudication into a moral show trial and casting the requirements of procedural justice aside.

The Defendant May Not Cooperate with the Performance

By law, preparatory proceedings are meant to determine the sequence and types of evidence to be investigated. A judge cannot simply play a scene-stealing role by "preparing" a book. As a friend, a judge might give any book to anyone; but as an adjudicator, a book intentionally chosen by a judge implies the judge's mental disposition. To hold such a "prejudgment" at the "very first" court session renders the judge already somewhat unfit. By law, a defendant has the right to appeal—not to mention that death and life imprisonment sentences are subject to mandatory appeal. Thus, blaming the defendant for appealing is both illegal and absurd. While intensive trials are certainly beneficial, there are only slightly more than two months left before the Lunar New Year. If there is no trial plan and proceedings have just begun, it remains to be seen whether future sessions will merely be a matter of going through the motions.

The antonym of a "righteousness troll" is "empathetic understanding," which means "disagreeing with your views, but roughly understanding your thoughts." The judge who gave away the book has already presupposed a highly dramatic script of the "Upright Magistrate": "After reading the book, the defendant experiences a profound awakening, desperately seeks death; upon seeing this remorseful heart, the judge spares the defendant's death sentence while ensuring they still face punishment; conversely, if the defendant shows no remorse and still seeks death, they shall be granted neither life nor mercy." Yet, a truly remorseful person may not be able to "act out" this script, while someone who "can act it out" may not be truly remorseful.

We do not doubt the judge's integrity, but we do question the depth of the judge's understanding of the nuances of human nature. Perhaps what is truly despairing is the judge's "naive" and "not at all complex" "mindset."