Tears Beneath the Bells of Death Ridge

A vast number of criminal judgments still rely on police interrogation records as the basis for adjudication; it is no exaggeration to call police interrogation records the "gateway of life and death."

Criminal defendants who believe they have suffered a miscarriage of justice frequently dispute the contents of these records, alleging improper interrogation methods such as torture, intimidation, and leading questions. However, unless these defenses are concrete and explicit (such as injury diagnosis reports), it remains difficult to overturn the legality of police interrogation records.

In response to a defendant's defense of torture, courts often have no choice but to ask the handling police officers: "Did you beat the defendant?" Quite a few officers must have answered this question in court, but none has ever been heard answering: "Yes!" This certainly cannot be blamed on the individual honesty or dishonesty of the police officers, but rather on the police's negligence regarding investigative procedures (specifically, the failure to implement continuous audio and video recording). Of course, the ultimate burden of this outcome falls not on the police or the courts, but on the defendant and their once-happy family.

Reports of police torturing criminal suspects seem increasingly rare; however, situations involving threats and elicited confessions through inducement remain commonplace. Torture during confession extraction may perhaps be corroborated to some extent by injury diagnosis reports; yet, if one is threatened or lured into cooperating with the police to give false confessions, it is extremely difficult to prove. This is because such coercion usually occurs prior to the formal recording of the statement, making it difficult to ascertain even if the audio and video recordings of the police interrogation are subsequently reviewed and examined.

Precisely for this reason, in today's era where human rights protection is emphasized, how to implement lawful police interrogation procedures appears vitally important. If interrogation procedures can be faithfully conducted in accordance with the law—ensuring non-disclosure of investigations, informing suspects of their fundamental rights, and maintaining continuous audio and video recording—it will not only safeguard fundamental human rights but also have positive significance for the court's future investigation and trial.

Naturally, for police officers under performance pressure, a "wrongful execution" may still yield performance metrics, whereas a "wrongful release" certainly yields none. Therefore, "wrongful execution" seems far more appealing than "protecting human rights." Consequently, in discussing human rights protection during the police interrogation stage, the police performance evaluation system inevitably needs to be reviewed in tandem. Simply demanding that the police abide by legal procedures and protect human rights while failing to provide positive incentives, and instead continuing to enforce the same performance system, is manifestly harsh on the majority of police officers.

During the police interrogation stage, although criminal suspects and their families may retain a lawyer to be present, such a "right to be present" is still subject to numerous restrictions. The police can easily cite the provisions of Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to restrict or entirely prohibit it. Furthermore, while the presence of a lawyer can certainly prevent improper confession extraction during the interrogation, for most criminal suspects, there is no opportunity to consult a lawyer prior to questioning; if a lawyer proactively inquires about the case details, they are frequently prohibited by the police. Moreover, for a suspect detained at a police station, a lawyer often appears less familiar and trustworthy than the police officer who previously offered inducements. At this point, the presence of counsel fails to protect human rights and instead ironically becomes the basis for the court to later determine that "the police interrogation record was legally obtained."

Such is the current reality of the system. To criminal suspects and their families, it is cruel; to lawyers, it is powerless and helpless.

Improper confession extraction by the police is akin to a criminal suspect taking a misstep and plunging off the Bridge of Death; even if their family weeps their hearts out, the chances of survival (exoneration from unjust imprisonment) remain slim. Before the system is rebuilt, if the police can re-recognize the importance of interrogation procedures, the mournful bell of human rights may perhaps cease to ring everywhere.

※ Published in: Apple Daily / Forum