Prosecutor Lee Tsu-chun, Please Step Down

If Prosecutor Lee Tsu-chun truly wishes to take the stage at the "Special Investigation Division," he had better step down from the television "stage" first!

Recently, the 2100 Talking Weekend has frequently invited Prosecutor Lee Tsu-chun to take the "stage" as a co-guest. Living up to expectations, Prosecutor Lee delivered impassioned criticisms of judicial flaws on the program. With a sharp and fiery tongue, he launched unsparing and triumphant commentaries on major ongoing criminal cases widely covered by the media, leaving almost none unscathed. Given Prosecutor Lee's traditionally idiosyncratic personality, his purpose in appearing on television is likely not to show off, but rather driven by an incorrigible "sense of righteous mission." The media has conveniently "pushed" him into the Special Investigation Division to handle major cases, and some have even treated whether Lee Tsu-chun can enter the Special Investigation Division as a "test question" for whether Prosecutor-General nominee Hsieh Wen-ting will pass muster. Prosecutor Lee also seems to be following the public will, pledging to investigate cases "on the line of duty" and resigning to step down in accountability if he fails to uncover the truth.

Regarding Prosecutor Lee's spicy and unbridled commentary on television, the Ministry of Justice and the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office have found it difficult to endure. They recently issued an official document instructing the Hualien District Prosecutors Office to investigate and handle the matter. Yesterday, newspaper reports indicated that the Hualien District Prosecutors Office suggested to the Ministry of Justice that Prosecutor Lee "not be penalized" for appearing on the program. The primary rationale was that a democratic society should respect and tolerate differing opinions, and the content discussed by Lee Tsu-chun on the program fell under the scope of freedom of speech, and so forth. In fact, this is a question that is both interesting and serious. During the recent controversies surrounding President Ah-bian's civil lawsuit—specifically regarding whether the president enjoys freedom of speech—Prosecutor Lee Tsu-chun's appearance on television to deliver commentaries may touch upon similar doubts: Do judicial officers representing state enforcement (judges and prosecutors) enjoy freedom of speech? May they publicly comment on ongoing judicial cases? From the perspective of constitutional protections for freedom of speech, it would appear that Prosecutor Lee's remarks do not involve legal violations. However, the issue likely lies not in whether it is illegal, but in the realm of professional ethics and boundaries. Taking the California Code of Judicial Ethics as an example, judges are prohibited in principle from commenting on ongoing cases, thereby restricting the scope of judges' freedom of speech through professional ethical standards. Prosecutors, who share the attribute of being "judicial officers" just like judges, should presumably be subject to the same restrictions. Restricting judicial officers from commenting on ongoing cases under professional ethics is not an act of "professional courtesy among peers," but rather an ideological foundation built upon avoiding interference in individual cases and safeguarding judicial independence. Imagine if judges or prosecutors, having neither involvement in other ongoing cases nor a true understanding of them, casually and arbitrarily comment on cases handled by others based on their own will or individual investigative experience. Would this not amount to exerting "peer pressure" on the handling judges or prosecutors through public opinion, and potentially worsening into open "collegial lobbying"? Compared to commentaries by ordinary individuals who are neither judicial officers nor prosecutors, this would likely impose greater psychological pressure on the handling judge or prosecutor, thereby interfering with their inner conviction and affecting judicial independence. Furthermore, if a judge or prosecutor publicly states regarding an ongoing case that "if no result is produced, I will step down," it may appear righteous, courageous, and accountable. However, from the perspective of the ethics of responsibility, might this be questioned as having "prejudged" the matter, or conducting investigations with bias or preconception? In the end, even if some result is actually produced, it will inevitably invite the mockery of investigating with a preconceived agenda and lacking impartiality. How can one not exercise caution in speech and conduct?

The law emphasizes both "might" and "reason." Legal professionals must not only possess sufficient professional "ability," but must also be sustained by rigorous professional "ethics" to avoid partiality and straying onto the wrong path. The suggestion by the Hualien District Prosecutors Office not to impose punishment is likely due to the low density of professional ethical standards for prosecutors, leading them to believe that there were no rules to govern the matter.

※ Published in: China Times / A15 / Forum