Judge, I'll Believe You When Pigs Fly

Compiling this year's court observation reports, we read feedback from observers: a judge roared at a defendant, "I'll believe you when pigs fly!" Another judge shouted, "Shut your mouth starting right now!" A third fiercely declared, "You too, stop sitting there... I'll chew you out later." It makes one deeply feel how lacking in human dignity it is to be in such a courtroom. In truth, judges with poor attitudes are few in number, but the judicial authorities' turning a blind eye and shielding them allows these few judges to continue treating the people arbitrarily, which is why public satisfaction with the judiciary remains chronically depressed.

Regarding poor courtroom demeanor, the legal community has consistently lacked self-awareness and reflection, offering excuses such as: "This judge is fierce, but very diligent," or "Although the judge's attitude is problematic, the judgment quality is good." This highlights that the notion of "prioritizing substance over procedure" still pervades legal circles. Through our court observations, we have further discovered that when some judges berate, humiliate, or intimidate during court sessions, it is not simply a matter of poor emotional management. Rather, it is deliberately utilized as a courtroom technique to instill fear in parties, preventing them from fully asserting their rights, thereby forcing them to plead guilty, withdraw claims, or settle. This allows judges to quickly close cases without the hardship of writing lengthy judgments.

Wild Remarks Impair Impartiality

"A court must be perceived from the outside as impartial and unbiased by any third party."

This is an international human rights standard promulgated in General Comment No. 32 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. A judge's words, deeds, and even external statements in court shape the image of the judiciary and influence the public's imagination of judicial impartiality. However, instances of disqualifying conduct occur not only among judges in ordinary courts, but even Grand Justice Su Yung-chin (蘇永欽), who held the high office of Vice President of the Judicial Yuan, uttered reckless remarks in an attempt to influence the development of a case, showing not the slightest care for safeguarding the impartial image of the judiciary.

r

In fact, a judge is sometimes like a taxi driver, tasked with using procedural rules to transport parties to their legally prescribed destination. If we got into a taxi where the driver suddenly announced he wouldn't take short trips, insisted on taking his preferred route, pontificated about his personal philosophy on life, and even brought his emotions into it, passengers would undoubtedly feel nervous, helpless, and angry. Inside the courtroom, if judges cannot control their emotions, stances, and inexplicable stubbornness, and there is no swift, effective, and reasonable customer complaint or removal mechanism—then Judge, how am I supposed to believe in you?

※This article was published in the Apple Daily on November 12, 2015