How Judges and Prosecutors Can Regain Trust

76 percent of the public consider prosecutors to be unfair, and 84 percent distrust judges. A poll by the Center for Criminological Research at National Chung Cheng University reflects the public's persistently low trust in the judiciary. No doubt many judges and prosecutors feel this is unfair and may even question the poll's methodology. While these reactions and doubts may have some merit, public distrust in the judiciary is long-standing and worsening. Remedies must fit the illness; the Ma administration bundled anti-corruption and judicial reform together, which years later proved to be the wrong prescription.

First, "Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done." Great importance must be attached to communicating with the general society; otherwise, even if progress is made, the people cannot see it. Let me ask: if considerable effort is expended on writing judicial judgments only for them to be grueling for everyone to read, is that not ineffective communication? Furthermore, when indictments or non-prosecution decisions are not published, and judgments are not made public immediately upon delivery, can the low judicial image really be blamed entirely on complaining about the media and political pundits?

Moreover, sincere communication is also manifested in hardware facilities and software mindset. Early administrative agencies were cold and distant, but after the lifting of martial law, Taiwan's society has continuously broken away from authoritarianism. If the police, in addition to fighting crime, can project a sense of being approachable and convenient to the people, should prosecutors' "majestic and mysterious" interrogation rooms be abolished? Should the towering judicial bench also be lowered? Highly oppressive interrogation methods make anyone uncomfortable. If the culture of "treating the people as common rabble" cannot be changed, the judiciary will simply continue to alienate the public.

The most thorough approach is actually the democratization of the judiciary. In short, this means maximizing judicial accountability under the premise of ensuring judicial independence. For example, what people care about most is the removal of incompetent judges and prosecutors. "Incompetence" is not just taking bribes or having affairs (historically the main reasons for removal), but also those who merely seek to muddle through cases, blindly follow superiors' orders, and care only for personal interests. In addition to removal, transparency is equally important, such as personnel and decision-making transparency. The ultimate (and still controversial) measures also include opening up (some) judges and chief prosecutors to popular election, or allowing citizens to participate in trials.

On the other hand, aside from expecting new actions from the new government, the public must also continuously deepen participation; self-empowerment and fighting for rights are the true recipes for refining the judiciary.

※ Originally published at: 2016/02/25 Liberty Times » Liberty Plaza »