Revisiting the Issue of Public Dissatisfaction with the Judiciary

On February 23, 2016, the Liberty Times published a front-page headline reading, "Ma Administration's Eight Years in Office Sees Judicial Trust Plummet to Rock Bottom," reflecting the high degree of public distrust in the judiciary and implying that the Ma administration should bear the primary responsibility. This reportedly sparked considerable discussion within the judicial sector, with many criticizing National Chung Cheng University's opinion poll as deeply flawed.

I also submitted an op-ed that was published on February 25, expressing my views on related issues. After the article was published, a senior judge called me to express their view that the op-ed was unfair to judges: "Knowing full well that National Chung Cheng University's questionnaire survey method was flawed, why didn't you speak up for judges?" We mutually encouraged each other as "public intellectuals" to stand alongside idealistic and passionate judges and prosecutors, taking pride in being public intellectuals and working together for judicial reform.

Due to time and space constraints, my previous 800-word media op-ed could not delve into many details. Following that conversation, I felt even more compelled to revisit the issue of public dissatisfaction with the judiciary, and, from a non-governmental standpoint, suggest attitudes and approaches for judges and prosecutors to respond.

The Survey Methodology Is Admittedly Flawed

National Chung Cheng University's questionnaire survey should be viewed in two parts: First, is there a problem with the opinion survey itself? Second, is the public's low satisfaction with the judiciary real? If it is real, what are the underlying reasons? Having found the causes, where are the corresponding solutions?

The senior judge who called me was essentially drawing my attention to the first part of the problem. They believed I should "speak out courageously" for judges and criticize Chung Cheng University's survey, especially given that its basic presuppositions might be wrong.

In fact, regarding the first part, I very much agree with this observation and critique. I also think that "conveniently" questioning the fairness and impartiality of judges and prosecutors within questionnaires on "victimization surveys" and "satisfaction with major public safety issues" may not be entirely appropriate.

Upon closer examination of the context of Chung Cheng University's telephone interviews, the presentation of opinions is quite superficial, prompting the general public to express their views on public safety satisfaction along the roles of police officers, prosecutors, and judges. This context is inherently problematic.

Strictly speaking, "maintaining public safety" is not part of a judge's "job." Armed with judicial power, a judge's most fundamental task is often to consciously resist potential abuses of power by the police and prosecutors, standing from the standpoint of judicial independence to dismiss inappropriate prosecutorial applications and correct unlawful police evidence-collection practices.

For example, in recent high-profile cases heavily criticized by the media and causing intense public dissatisfaction—such as the Ting Hsin case, the Lin Yi-shih case, and the AUO case—the judges who handed down "lenient sentences" likely committed no major errors. Therefore, public dissatisfaction with the judiciary cannot be directly blamed on the courts.

Dissatisfaction with the judiciary may stem from elsewhere, such as incomplete evidence collection by police and prosecutors failing to persuade the judge, or a significant gap between the legal opinions of the prosecution and the court. This is dictated by the nature of the system; discrepancies between the opinions of judges and prosecutors are an expected norm that the public should gradually understand and accept. Conversely, if judges were to accept the prosecution's indictments and police investigations completely without question, that would be a situation the public should truly worry about.

However, when prosecutors or the media have already hyped public expectations for "severe sentencing" too high, any verdict that falls short invites criticism. To lay the blame entirely on the courts—simply because they are the ones handing down the final judgment—and brand judges as "dinosaur judges" is, strictly speaking, unfair.

Furthermore, "who" should be held responsible for public safety? It could be an opaque political environment, insufficiently transparent political-business relationships, environmental protection agencies or police and prosecutors lacking the resolve to gather evidence, or prosecutors who hastily indicted and demanded heavy sentences under the mistaken belief that evidence was sufficient.

In short, judges should simply be adjudicators, not unconditional endorsers of police and prosecutorial actions. As a rigorous academic research institution, National Chung Cheng University should have the capacity to make more nuanced distinctions and judgments, even if the general public cannot discern who is responsible for "lenient sentencing." This is to avoid the misunderstanding that academic surveys are merely following the crowd, seemingly joining internet users in taking pleasure in blaming "dinosaur judges."

Nevertheless, this survey by the Chung Cheng University Crime Research Center has actually been running for quite some time. Although the survey methodology is rather simple, public satisfaction with the judiciary has consistently been very low, and responses expressing dissatisfaction with the judiciary are arguably much more important.

Responses to Dissatisfaction with the Judiciary Are More Important

I can understand that behind a lenient sentence falling short of public expectations, aside from judicial corruption, lobbying, or being out of touch with reality, there may be other reasons. Chung Cheng University's survey is indeed insufficiently sophisticated; yet, although its statistically derived judicial satisfaction is exceedingly low, it aligns closely with the public's longstanding trend of distrusting the judiciary.

There is an attitudinal issue that judges and prosecutors may need to adjust: even if they feel aggrieved, they should perhaps moderately understand that public distrust in the judiciary stems from several major incidents directly attributable to the conduct of judges and prosecutors, rather than merely controversial opinions in major cases.

The collective corruption of High Court judges occurred only in 2010. Prosecutor-General Huang Shih-ming stepping down and subsequently being convicted happened only in 2013. No matter how one drags in blue-green political partisan struggles, the infighting between the two major prosecutorial leaders, Huang Shih-ming and Tseng Yung-fu, is an undeniable fact.

These events have severely damaged the image of the judiciary. Subsequent efforts are about bit-by-bit rebuilding that image—much like children paying off their parents' debts, where the next generation pays for what the previous generation owed. It is indeed somewhat unfair, perhaps very unfair, but the image of the judiciary is something accumulated collectively by everyone, and this is an attitude that must be adjusted.

Merely nitpicking Chung Cheng University's interview methods—whether questioning sample representativeness or contextual errors—even if it successfully dismantled the questionnaire survey methodologically, would unlikely boost public satisfaction with the judiciary. The focal point should be whether the authorities truly take this "misunderstanding/opinion" of the judiciary (call it a misunderstanding or an opinion) to heart and genuinely strive to respond to it.

Just as I mentioned in my short 800-word article, no matter how much effort is put in, a judiciary that is not "seen" is virtually ineffective. Law places great emphasis on form, and adjudication even possesses a certain degree of ritualism; it is crucial that the judiciary "appears fair." In this way, at least in dimensions where the public can encounter, witness, and experience it, the judiciary can gradually be accepted and embraced by the people.

"Sincere and effective" communication is also vital. In our past authoritarian era, officials disliked "talking nonsense" with the public, and legal language itself created a certain barrier. When legal professionals simply close their doors and admire their own legal prose, no matter how logically sound it is, without proper translation in the eyes of the general public, it is nothing more than meaningless mumbling that fails to touch people's hearts. How could the public possibly be satisfied with the judiciary?

We truly need to reflect repeatedly: is prosecutors' practice of not publishing non-prosecution disposition documents merely a deformed system born in the party-state era to shelter privileged individuals? In particular, it still enjoys the same powerful binding effect as a final acquittal judgment! When courts deliver judgments without simultaneously publishing the written judgments, compared to granting the public the immediate "right to know," is this merely a long-overdue, negligible bad habit?

Are the written judgments that judges spend their youth writing meant merely to report upward to superiors rather than to be read by the public? Can the language of judgments be made more accessible, and can the formatting adopt more reader-friendly methods? Can the publication of digital judicial information adopt methods that are more open, convenient, and readily accessible for public processing and use?

Frankly speaking, the caliber of current judges and prosecutors is increasingly high, and the exceptionally low scores given to the judiciary by the public are somewhat unjust. However, the judiciary's long-standing, uninspiring culture of sycophancy and complacency, its reluctance to open up to the outside world, and its atmosphere of self-censorship dating back to the authoritarian era are all factors suffocating the vitality of the judiciary.

I believe that through numerous micro-level practices, as long as there is intent and over time, the public can be made to trust the judiciary more. Even if progress is slow, as long as we persevere, given time, when the public senses that the judiciary is sincerely approaching them, I believe that even if Chung Cheng University continues to use less-than-precise survey methods, the public will not hesitate to give more positive evaluations.

※ This article was published in: PNN PTS News Issues Center