Bridging the Gap Between Judgments and Society

Recently, Judge Lin Hui-huang of the Yunlin District Court rendered a uniquely styled judgment in the criminal case of defendant Liu Teng-ho (Yunlin District Court 91st Year Yi Character No. 258 Criminal Judgment). The text reflected Judge Lin's sympathy for the party's plight and departed from the traditional, abstruse style of judgments, adopting a plain and colloquial tone instead, which sparked enthusiastic public discussion. The Judicial Yuan responded that it is committed to promoting judgments that are "colloquial" and "demystified" to make them easily readable and understandable for the general public, thereby properly conveying the judicial intent. However, this does not mean judgments should be "novela-ized" or filled with content unrelated to the facts, reasons, or judgment outcomes merely to embellish the writing.

Why did a judge's judgment become a topic of public discussion and news? Perhaps we should start with the style of judgments currently used in our country. The traditional judgment style in our country is not written in colloquial vernacular, but rather resembles classical Chinese mixed with specialized legal terminology, feeling somewhat closer to official government documents. However, because judgments must set forth the facts of the case and the reasons for the judge's decision, requiring considerable length to explain clearly, their contents are even harder to understand than official documents. Once a judge writes a judgment that everyone can understand, it naturally feels like timely rain after a severe drought, making it approachable and endearing. Yet, breaking away from tradition to produce a "custom-styled" judgment is bound to attract the concern of conservative forces; if a judgment itself expresses excessive personal emotion, it is all the more likely to provoke controversy.

Promoting the colloquialization of judgments should be a shared consensus between officials and the public, but realizing it is fraught with difficulties. This article believes that judicial personnel must first recognize that judgments are written for the parties involved and the general public to read. Only when the style and content of judgments are connected with society can the judiciary and society engage in positive interaction and, in turn, build a society that respects the judiciary. Any piece of writing or speech must target specific readers or listeners for the text or language to possibly resonate with the audience. An elementary school teacher and a high school teacher certainly speak to students with different attitudes; the academic papers of law professors and the legal opinions written by lawyers for their clients should also feel different in their composition. If judicial personnel position judgments as official documents, the language they write will naturally be abstruse, rigid, and difficult to understand. If judicial personnel, when writing judgments, bear in mind that these judgments are meant to be read by the general public, the results may not be entirely satisfactory, but they will surely hesitate to use abstruse and difficult terms that increase the difficulty of reading judgments. We hope that this issue will be discussed in the training courses for judicial personnel.

Bridging the gap between judgments and society also requires ongoing legal education in schools and society. In the conclusion of the judgment for defendant Lin Ching-sung (Yunlin District Court 90th Year Chung-Su Character No. 7 Criminal Judgment), Judge Lin Hui-huang mentioned, "...Among the many possible coexistence of situations conjectured and inferred by this court, the court is not certain of the judgment regarding the truth of this case, and thus has no choice but to pronounce the defendant Lin Ching-sung not guilty. However, defendant Lin Ching-sung, who has been pronounced not guilty by this court, has also failed to prove his own innocence and still carries suspicion." This is the concept of "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, rule for the accused) emphasized by modern rule-of-law states. If this concept can become a common understanding possessed by ordinary citizens, Judge Lin would not need to labor over it in the judgment. Basic legal education can guide the general public to approach and understand the judiciary, making it a genuine mechanism for resolving disputes in the hearts of the people.

Judicial reform is not only institutional reform, but also cultural reform. The style of judicial judgments is the result of decades of accumulated training and habits of our country's legal professionals, and the goal of colloquializing them can hardly be achieved in the short term. Legal knowledge is an imported foreign culture, and taking root locally still relies on the continuous sowing by legal professionals and educators. Cultural reform can only witness the day of cultural transformation when the local government and people carefully engage in self-reflection and encourage one another every time an incident occurs.

※ Published in: Liberty Times