A Judiciary That "Refuses" to Admit Fault

The death penalty is an irreversible capital punishment.

Although judges in Taiwan are not popularly elected, they wield the ultimate power of life and death over criminal defendants. This authority relies entirely on the public's trust in their integrity, professional competence, and dedication. Without this trust, how can judicial verdicts be asserted with conviction and command public respect? And how can the judiciary claim to punish criminal defendants in the name of national and societal justice? Because judges are directly accountable to society through their rulings, they must recognize when exercising independent adjudication that they are fallible mortals rather than omniscient deities, and they must strictly adhere to due process to safeguard the ultimate correctness of their rulings through procedural justice. Remaining humble while wielding the power of life and death, and being cautious out of that humility, is the true source of the judiciary's legitimacy.

Hasty Justice Killed Lu Cheng and Chiang Kuo-ching

Unfortunately, in the cases of Lu Cheng and Chiang Kuo-ching (for details on both cases, please refer to the JRF website)—both of which garnered widespread public attention and in both of which death sentences have already been executed—we witnessed the full arrogance of the judiciary, alongside the hastiness and irresponsibility born of that arrogance. Both cases relied primarily on the defendants' confessions as the main evidence for conviction. However, the contents of these confessions not only contradicted other evidence in the case files but were also internally contradictory and riddled with flaws. As for how these confessions were obtained, the processes were further fraught with improper interrogation methods such as illegal detention, deception, and inducement. Yet, the courts turned a blind eye to major flaws that were obvious at first glance, continuing to rely on confessions as the primary evidence for conviction. The hastiness and irresponsibility of this approach make the judgments too agonizing to bear. Little wonder the defendants were still proclaiming their innocence right up until their execution!

Control Yuan Investigation Reports Reveal Pervasive Doubts in Both Cases

Precisely because these hasty and brutal judgments were so difficult for the public to accept, after Lu Cheng and Chiang Kuo-ching were executed by firing squad, their families—knowing that the established facts could not be undone—still petitioned the Control Yuan. The Control Yuan's investigations concluded that the personnel handling both cases had committed dereliction of duty and violated the law.

In Lu Cheng's case, although the Control Yuan only issued formal corrections to the National Police Agency, the Tainan City Police Department, and its Fifth Precinct, its investigation report directly pointed out flaws in the factual determinations and legal applications made by prosecutors at the Tainan District Prosecutors Office and judges across all instances. As for the Chiang Kuo-ching case, the Control Yuan's investigative opinions clearly indicated that the judgment left numerous doubts unresolved, and it urged the Ministry of National Defence to direct subordinate units to examine whether grounds existed for initiating a retrial or extraordinary appeal, as well as to form a specialized task force to re-examine all suspects in the case one by one in order to clear up lingering doubts.

Judicial Organs Strictly Adhere to the Three "Nots": No Admission of Fault, No Compensation, No Vindication

Yet, to judicial and military judicial personnel, the Control Yuan's investigations were like wind blowing past a horse's ear. In Lu Cheng's case, we only saw the Fifth Precinct of the Tainan City Police Department issue reprimands ranging from one to two times to the handling police officers (roughly equivalent to penalties for sloppy grooming or attire), with no disciplinary action taken by the Ministry of Justice or the Judicial Yuan against the prosecutors and judges censured by the Control Yuan. As for the Chiang Kuo-ching case, the Supreme Military Prosecutor's Office under the Ministry of National Defence not only failed to proactively study and act upon the Control Yuan's investigative opinions, but instead dismissed the application for an extraordinary appeal filed by Chiang Kuo-ching's family on absurd grounds. As for proactively admitting fault or apologizing? Those judges and prosecutors were more than happy to play deaf and dumb, let alone admit fault or apologize.

A Judiciary That "Refuses" to Admit Fault Incites Public Outrage

Could it be that because the executions have already been carried out, a wrongful conviction can simply be swept under the rug? Refusing to admit fault for one's own negligence fully demonstrates arrogance, alongside a terrifying reality: driven by the hastiness and inertia stemming from this arrogance, the judiciary could commit wrongful acts again at any moment! And a judiciary that might at any time send an innocent person to the execution ground—how does it have any qualification to call itself "justice"? It is nothing more than a killing machine! Therefore, today, on the anniversary of the Judicial Reform Foundation (the JRF was officially announced to the public on November 4, 1995), while we are filled with deep sorrow to commemorate Lu Cheng, Chiang Kuo-ching, and other innocent souls wrongfully deprived of their lives by the judicial and military judicial systems, we also call upon the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Yuan, and the Ministry of National Defence to bravely shoulder their responsibilities, promptly respond to the Control Yuan's censures, and re-initiate extraordinary appeals in the cases of Lu Cheng and Chiang Kuo-ching to dispel public doubts and comfort the hearts of the deceased's families.