"The Criminal Speedy Trial Act" is merely a placebo

Last August, the Judicial Yuan suddenly introduced a draft of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act, featuring two main points. First, judges who recognize that a case dragged out for over ten years has infringed upon the people's right to a timely trial may proactively terminate the proceedings or reduce the sentence. Second, cases dragged out for over six years and remanded by the Supreme Court for retrial more than three times shall, in principle, no longer be appealable due to dissatisfaction with the judgment.

The criticism against the former is that, even if the defendant has endured over ten years of judicial torment, whether judges truly possess the moral courage and brilliance to directly terminate chronically delayed cases is doubtful; moreover, doing so effectively cuts off the defendant's possibility of fighting for an acquittal. Such a provision serves merely a declarative purpose with almost no operational utility, and naturally cannot help this group of pitiful victims of the judiciary.

The problem with the latter is that restricting parties in cases dragged out for over six years and remanded more than three times from appealing further undoubtedly sacrifices the defendant's existing right to appeal. This is a measure to clear backlog rather than to protect defendants from the persecution of an incompetent judiciary.

Based on the above considerations, a large number of legal scholars, attorneys, and citizens launched a joint petition against the official version of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act. Meanwhile, the JRF proposed a citizen's counter-version to contend with the Judicial Yuan, which spearheaded the bill, in the Legislative Yuan. This Friday, the Legislative Yuan passed the second and third readings of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act. Although the provision restricting the defendant's right to appeal—which most severely infringed upon the defendant's litigation rights—was deleted and replaced with regulations prohibiting or restricting prosecutors from appealing acquittals, the threshold for restricting prosecutors' appeals was raised as a result of bargaining with the Ministry of Justice. Consequently, the applicability of this provision is extremely low. After an eight-month battle between the government and the public, the people received only a few superficial provisions. Meanwhile, the government can proudly declare to all parties that they take the issue of delayed cases infringing upon people's right to a speedy trial seriously, and that they even enacted a Criminal Speedy Trial Act.

It is foreseeable that after passing an innocuous Criminal Speedy Trial Act that is practically unhelpful in solving the problem, the Judicial Yuan can substantially alleviate public pressure demanding judicial reform, while cases continue to drift aimlessly within the court system, leaving truth and justice as distant and elusive as ever.

Fairly speaking, like the Ministry of Justice, we express our regret that the Judicial Yuan insisted on rushing through a hasty Criminal Speedy Trial Act merely to boost its performance metrics. However, unlike the Ministry of Justice, we believe that prosecutors should be held accountable for the quality of the cases they prosecute, and if a case is repeatedly acquitted by the courts, they should not be allowed to appeal indefinitely, thereby wasting the youth of innocent defendants. Yet, doing this alone obviously fails to address the difficult challenges of an inefficient and irresolute judicial system. What the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice should do is conduct a comprehensive systemic health check of the criminal procedure system. Specifically, as suggested in the citizen's version of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act, a committee comprising judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, academics, and civil society representatives should be established to thoroughly review the root causes of case delays, propose concrete countermeasures, and legislate them into practice.

Furthermore, if we fail to swiftly pass the Judges Act—which provides mechanisms to supervise or even eliminate negligent and sloppy judges and prosecutors—no matter how the litigation system is amended, it will remain mere talk on paper. Passing the Criminal Speedy Trial Act is nothing more than a feint; while it has a strong placebo effect, it achieves no therapeutic cure. The reform directions mentioned above are the true antidote to public grievances regarding the judiciary. As President Ma's term is nearing its halfway point, time and tide wait for no man if we fail to take action now.