Musical Chairs: Changes to Courtroom Seating Arrangements

According to news reports, the Ministry of Justice has clashed with the Judicial Yuan once again, this time over proposed changes to courtroom seating. The Judicial Yuan intends to lower the current, slightly elevated prosecutor's seat so that it is on equal footing with the defendant. The Ministry of Justice is intensely dissatisfied with this proposal, releasing questionnaire results showing that most prosecutors favor maintaining the status quo, and even questioning whether the "Judicial Yuan will only be satisfied once prosecutors are bleeding from five wounds in the courtroom."

Citizens who have never set foot in a courtroom may find it difficult to understand what the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan are fighting and insisting over. However, anyone who has actually participated in court proceedings can appreciate that courtroom seating configurations not only affect the conduct of proceedings, but also carry a certain degree of symbolic significance. Taking the reformed criminal procedure system—which adopts the "modified adversary system" and emphasizes the "presumption of innocence"—as an example, if prosecutors, as parties to the action, can still play a "superior" role compared to defendants, then realizing the spirit of the new system is nothing more than climbing a tree to catch fish.

Understandably, adjustments to "status" are bound to stir up mixed feelings among prosecutors. For a long time, judges and prosecutors in our country have shared the same origin and joint training, with their respective judicial careers determined merely by random assignment. In particular, in recent years, the status of judges in the courtroom has continually risen, while prosecutors, by contrast, have been increasingly treated as ordinary parties. Even their courtroom seating has been changed—from the early days of sitting on the bench alongside judges, to sitting on a platform fifteen centimeters lower on the left side of the judge since 1991. If they are now to be lowered to ground level to sit on equal footing with defendants, it is no wonder prosecutors are pushing back against such "deteriorating" treatment.

However, looking at the matter objectively and returning to the fundamental functions of courtroom seating, the current system not only places court clerks—who bear no judicial responsibility—on the bench, but also forcefully separates defendants and their defense counsel (with the defendant sitting in the defendant's seat, while defense counsel sits on a platform fifteen centimeters lower on the right side of the judge). This makes it nearly impossible for them to converse or communicate, severely impeding the exercise of the defendant's right to a defense and the lawyer's right to advocate. Furthermore, given that the new criminal procedure system emphasizes that prosecutors and defendants should be parties of equal standing, maintaining the status quo is clearly less than reasonable.

Of course, while supporting the Judicial Yuan's adjustment of courtroom seating, we must also address prosecutors' concerns regarding courtroom security. Yet, to prevent accidents, focusing on security measures and circulation design both inside and outside the courtroom seems to be the right path, rather than relying on prosecutors sitting tightly against the wall immediately to the left of the judge. In fact, when the JRF was consulting on the Judicial Yuan's planning of "courtroom layout," it repeatedly advised the Judicial Yuan not to rely solely on legal insiders working behind closed doors, but to broadly solicit opinions from spatial design and security experts in order to respond appropriately. Take the "National Court Observation Activity" conducted by the JRF last year (2003) as an example: some courts had no metal detectors at all (such as the Kinmen District Court); some courts had such equipment but left it unused (such as the Keelung, Taoyuan, Taichung, and Nantou District Courts); and the Changhua District Court even explained to the JRF's observation team that their metal detectors were unplugged during normal times and only turned on when trying major criminal cases to save energy. As for the Taiwan High Court, which is relatively diligent in its routine security checks, it has no security guards on duty before 8:30 AM on workdays. If bad actors were to smuggle dangerous items in beforehand, the consequences would be truly unthinkable! In other words, if courts handle entrance security so carelessly, it is not just prosecutors who have misgivings about seating changes; no other court users—whether judges, lawyers, witnesses, or parties—can feel secure.

"Changes to courtroom seating" may seem like a minor issue, but the "spatial psychology," "spatial politics," and "ebb and flow of power relations" involved behind the scenes are truly fascinating. However, since the government repeatedly touts "justice for the people" as the core axis of judicial reform, both the judiciary and the prosecution should exert themselves further to make courtrooms public domains where citizens can feel close and experience formal justice and substantive equality.

※ Published in: China Times