Please Believe in Your Own Faith

On January 13, the High Court delivered a not-guilty verdict in the retrial of the robbery-homicide case involving the three death-row prisoners Su Chien-ho, causing a nationwide uproar. The general public was left baffled, unable to understand how guilty verdicts previously rendered by dozens of judges could dramatically reverse overnight. Discussions within the legal community were even more intense, sparking a massive controversy as those who believed the three defendants were guilty engaged in fierce debates with those holding the opposite view.

Why do legal professionals study the same things yet hold such divergent opinions? We believe it all depends on whether those applying the law are willing to believe in and apply the "principle of presumption of innocence." Regarding a piece of evidence that partially aligns with the facts but partially contradicts them, those who adopt the presumption of guilt will consider it lawful evidence and adopt it, thereby forming a judgment of guilt against the defendant. Conversely, those who adopt the presumption of innocence will view the evidence as unlawful due to its flaws, and in the absence of other corroborating evidence, may even rule the defendant not guilty. The Su case is precisely this kind of situation.

Without evidence, one cannot casually convict a person. The "principle of presumption of innocence" can be described as the realization of the spirit of democratic rule of law. However, since the founding of the Republic, due to the public's traditional expectations of the judiciary's role, the notion of "presuming the defendant guilty" has not only taken deep root in people's hearts but has also established itself within the minds of legal professionals. Supreme Court Precedent No. 3076 (25th Year of the Republic) states: "The court trying the facts shall thoroughly investigate the evidence of the defendant's crime from all aspects in order to discover the truth. Unless all investigative avenues are exhausted and the suspicion of the defendant's crime still cannot be proven, it is difficult to hastily make a judgment of not guilty." This is precisely a manifestation of the presumption of guilt against the defendant. Furthermore, the existence of this precedent has generated doubts regarding the application of the principle of presumption of innocence in our country's criminal law domain. In recent years, thanks to the efforts of criminal law scholars, the Supreme Court finally acknowledged the flaws of the presumption of guilt principle and resolved to no longer invoke this precedent. The Code of Criminal Procedure, which was just passed through its third reading in the Legislative Yuan on January 15 this year, formally stipulated the principle of presumption of innocence in Article 154. This is truly an important advancement in our country's criminal legal system. The law has been amended, but after all, legal provisions are dead letters; will these legal practitioners who genuinely apply the law truly and willingly act in accordance with the law? Will wrongful convictions decrease simply because the principle of presumption of innocence has been explicitly codified? That still remains a huge question mark.

In reality, the attitudes of legal professionals toward the principle of presumption of innocence are quite inconsistent. Although everyone reads about it while studying criminal law and understands that it is a fundamental principle of criminal law, those who truly believe in and practice this principle are by no means the majority. Regarding Su Chien-ho and the other two who were acquitted by the court, some legal professionals still enthusiastically expressed their opinions: "'I feel' the three of them 'should' have done it." It is evident that the traditional mindset of "presumption of guilt" remains quite prevalent within the legal circle.

Legal professionals often lament that the public's rule-of-law literacy is insufficient, and public trust in the judiciary is also lacking. But looking back and thinking about it, do legal professionals themselves truly believe in the most fundamental principles of democracy, the rule of law, and basic human rights? Like missionaries, if they harbor doubts about their own faith, how can they expect others to believe in the existence of God? If we hope the general public will trust the judiciary, shouldn't we first start by demanding that legal professionals trust the basic principles of the judicial system? If you want others to believe in you, please first believe in your own faith!

※ Published in: The Liberty Times