The Litigation System is the Root Cause of Unreasonable Judgments

Recently, the Taiwan High Court's civil division ruling on the heavy damages in the "glass doll" accidental death case has drawn widespread social attention. Many have criticized the judges for failing to consider "emotion" and "reason," raising numerous questions about the judgment. In reality, the crux of the problem lies not in the law or the judges, but in the "judicial system" itself. Because our civil litigation system is overly rigid and judges are only responsible for writing judgments, once a lawsuit is filed, it must result in a judgment unless the plaintiff withdraws it, leaving no room for negotiation and resulting in a lose-lose outcome.

Taking the US civil court system as an example, it clearly emphasizes alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, or settlement conferences, treating trial as a last resort for resolving disputes. During litigation, a judge might say not to come to the courtroom for the next session, but instead go directly to a conference room for a settlement conference. The judge and the parties sit around a circular table to negotiate face-to-face, informing the parties of their preliminary legal opinion and possible outcomes, while the judge takes the lead in persuading the parties toward a settlement solution. In fact, many civil disputes in society arise from momentary anger. After time has passed to let things settle and upon hearing the judge explain that both sides should take a step back, most people can accept this and achieve a win-win situation.

This American attitude—that litigation should be avoided whenever possible—results in over 90 percent of litigation cases being successfully resolved through settlement before a judgment is rendered. This is immensely helpful in reducing the expenditure of time, money, and labor by the parties, alleviating delays in court case processing, and lowering judges' workloads. More importantly, citizens' disputes are resolved, achieving a win-win outcome and fostering social harmony.

In contrast, looking at Taiwan and the reactions of the parties involved in the "glass doll" case, it is evident that a case which could have been further negotiated (the plaintiff wanted compensation from the school, while student Chen only needed to apologize) was bound to a judgment once accepted by the judge, prohibiting private coordination with the parties. Once the judgment is rendered, the losing party continues to appeal. Such a waste of time, labor, and judicial resources is a great enemy of national competitiveness. Therefore, the root cause lies in the excessive rigidity of our civil litigation system, which leaves no room for facilitating settlement during litigation.

The authority of judicial adjudication should not be built on deterring the people, but should be rooted in winning people's hearts; it should not stem from harsh punishments and heavy penalties, but from edifying the human heart. Winning and edifying people's hearts are the very purpose of exercising state judicial power. Therefore, it is hoped that the relevant authorities will reflect on whether the design of the civil litigation system should follow the American approach of expanding mediation mechanisms. There is no need to be restricted to the notion that once a litigation is filed, the judge must prepare how to write a judgment, dare not conduct settlements during court sessions, or shy away from openly disclosing preliminary opinions. When judges openly disclose their preliminary opinions and point out where the plaintiff or defendant has yet to convince the court, it not only makes the trial process open and transparent, but also facilitates settlements between the parties during litigation. This would vastly enhance adjudication efficiency, indicators of judicial integrity, and the degree of public trust in the courts.

※ Published in: 2005-8-28 / China Times / Forum