The Judge Who "Let the Tiger Back to the Mountain" Deserves to Die!?

Recently, Hsueh Ch'iu, one of the ten most wanted fugitives, committed another major kidnapping and extortion case, shocking the nation. Many pointed the finger at the judge who dismissed the prosecutor's detention request and granted bail when the suspect was painstakingly captured by the police, accusing the judge of letting a tiger back to the mountain and demanding accountability. Media reports also noted that the judge was extremely depressed and unable to find peace of mind.

There are many judges who, like this one, face criticism afterward for granting bail to suspects—ranging from minor cases where a habitual thief reoffends after parole, with police making an arrest, prosecutors legally requesting detention, and the judge dismissing the request and granting release on bail, only for the thief to continue committing crimes; to major cases such as Wu Tse-yuan applying for medical parole, which the judge also approved, only for him to flee and never be caught again, among other examples. The judges who made these decisions have all suffered severe criticism and immense physical and mental pressure. Such criticism is sometimes unfair to the judges. After all, standing from the perspective of safeguarding human rights, when the evidence presented by the prosecutor is insufficient to establish that a criminal suspect meets the grounds for detention prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no choice under the law but to order bail.

Judges should indeed be held accountable for releasing criminal suspects due to a lack of experience, which results in significant social costs later on; however, systemic issues are even more worthy of review. Criminal trial proceedings emphasize evidence, and evidence must comply with the "strict proof rule." Without such evidence, a judge must legally rule to acquit the defendant. Yet, detention proceedings possess a unique nature. They not only demand swiftness, but due to time constraints, it is also difficult for prosecutors to present sufficient evidence within such a short timeframe to prove the defendant's crimes. We believe that regarding the special nature of detention proceedings, alternative institutional considerations should be made. For instance, the Code of Criminal Procedure could stipulate that courts establish dedicated specialized courts and judges to exclusively adjudicate detention request cases. When conducting proceedings in such courts, the rule of free proof would suffice, without needing to reach the level of strict proof required in general trial procedures, thereby meeting the requirement for prompt detention. Furthermore, to reduce the degree of infringement on personal liberty during the detention procedure to a minimum, the High Court should also establish specialized courts to handle appeals against detention, swiftly reviewing such detention appeals. In the meantime, to prevent criminal suspects from immediately fleeing after being released on bail by a district court judge, provisions should be designed allowing judges to require criminal suspects to be kept in short-term detention for several hours during the appeal period. Thus, even if the lower court's bail ruling is revoked by the High Court upon appeal, it would not be too late.

Another system that should be reviewed is the judge cultivation system. Due to our current unsound examination and recruitment system, university graduates passing the judicial officer examination right out of school are commonplace. Coupled with a mere two years of training, the youngest judges can determine people's fates at the age of twenty-four with zero real-world experience. It is hardly surprising that they earn the public derision of being "pacifier judges." Therefore, the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF), together with the Taipei Bar Association, Taiwan Bar Association, Taiwan Judges Association, and Association for Prosecution Reform, jointly launched the civilian version of the "Judges Act" this year. To establish a mechanism for cultivating judges at an early stage, the Judicial Yuan and civic groups have already reached a consensus, hoping to completely abolish the judicial examination by 2008 at the latest and instead adopt a selection process from senior prosecutors, attorneys, and law professors. All these reforms aim to make the cultivation of judges more rational, so that those convicted will be thoroughly convinced by the judgments.

When Hsueh Ch'iu was arrested back then, he already had a long criminal record. Regardless of the reasons, this judge should be held accountable for hastily ruling to release him on bail without thorough scrutiny. However, we do not wish to see this judge become a sacrificial victim or scapegoat of verbal warfare. At this juncture, apart from the police, prosecutors, and investigative agencies taking prompt remedial actions for individual cases, what is even more worthy of our reflection is re-examining and improving the trial procedures for detention, reconciling the dual requirements of "promptness" and "certainty" for such proceedings, so that the court may come closer to true "justice without error."

※ Published in: Liberty Times