Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court Should Merely Be the Starting Point

Recently, the Supreme Court decided to hold oral arguments regarding sentencing in future death penalty cases, which has been affirmed by various sectors over the past few days. However, oral arguments in the Supreme Court should by no means be limited solely to sentencing in death penalty cases; rather, they should extend to all major legal issues.

The Supreme Court is the "highest judicial trial organ" in our country and bears the authority to unify interpretations of important legal provisions. The precedents selected and resolutions made by the Supreme Court exert a substantive binding force on lower courts. Therefore, in handling cases in practice, judges and litigants alike inevitably search whether the Supreme Court has previously expressed opinions on similar cases. Although our Supreme Court does not possess the power of constitutional review, its practical status is arguably second to none, even surpassing the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. Yet, despite shouldering such an important function of legal interpretation, the Supreme Court has rarely held court sessions in the past. Now, while opening up oral arguments, it has attached two restrictive requirements: "death penalty" and "sentencing." The Supreme Court evidently fails to realize what crucial role it can play in a democratic society.

In a democratic society, aside from resolving individual case disputes, oral arguments in the Supreme Court serve the functions of educating the public and enhancing public trust in the judiciary. During the process of oral arguments, defendants and victims have an equal opportunity to present their views to the state's court of final appeal and the nation's most senior judges, while judges can also "on the spot" and "in real time" raise questions regarding the arguments of both parties. Through this exchange of questions and answers, litigants can truly feel that their voices are being heard by the adjudicators. Judges can also genuinely realize that the cases they handle involve living human beings rather than merely cold, written texts. This face-to-face, back-and-forth communication is in itself a concrete realization of procedural justice. Therefore, convening oral arguments at the Supreme Court can substantially enhance litigants' trust in judicial decisions, a function that written proceedings can by no means match.

Taking the United States as an example, every oral argument before its Supreme Court serves as a communication platform for important social issues. Prior to the arguments, the court permits relevant interest groups nationwide to submit "amicus curiae" briefs, allowing social groups to supplement perspectives not covered in the briefs of the opposing parties. This ensures that the Supreme Court's judgment not only aligns with individual case justice but also, to the greatest extent possible, accommodates public opinion, preventing its decisions from becoming disconnected from the people. During oral arguments, the court records the entire proceeding and subsequently provides transcripts, allowing the public to listen and download them on the court's website.

Through the audio recordings and transcripts, the public can understand what judges are thinking in the most direct way: Which rights did judges take into consideration on specific issues? What is the blueprint envisioned by judges for our country's future legal system? This process can significantly narrow the distance between the court and the public, lifting the mysterious veil of the Supreme Court so that the public's perception of Supreme Court judges is not limited to mere names at the end of a judgment.

In short, the significance of court sessions held by the Supreme Court far transcends the justice of individual cases. The Supreme Court's recent plan to conduct oral arguments on sentencing in death penalty cases is a good start, but it is by no means the end of reform. The author suggests seizing this opportunity to maximize the benefits of oral arguments and holding court sessions for all future major legal and social controversies. Furthermore, the Supreme Court should contemplate how to present its image to the public through the adjudication of individual cases, translating abstract issues into concrete ones to fulfill the functions of building public trust in the judiciary and promoting social discourse.