Unlocking the Intractable Knot Between the Judiciary and the People

Two recent, highly controversial judicial rulings are the Supreme Court's final verdict sentencing a defendant to life imprisonment and lifelong deprivation of civil rights in the Tainan Tom Bear throat-slitting case, and a court sentencing a man to three months' imprisonment with two years' probation for negligent homicide after he accidentally strangled a thief while protecting his pregnant wife. Upon the announcement of these judgments, public outcry erupted. People decried the downfall of justice once again, adding yet another mark to the judiciary's record of unfairness.

As Taiwanese society has moved toward democracy and freedom, citizens are no longer merely concerned with their own personal affairs; they actively voice their opinions on government administration, hold their own imaginations and expectations regarding social justice, and have consequently developed a localized logic. They hope that the judiciary can reflect the voice of society, punish criminals, and deter potential offenders. The public believes that judges who render verdicts aligned with social expectations are trustworthy "good judges"; otherwise, senior judges are labeled as "dinosaur judges" and junior judges as "pacifier judges."

Judges Actually Face Great Struggles

Surprisingly, not only do the people lack confidence in the judiciary, but judges themselves also feel powerless and a lack of a sense of validation in their adjudication work. As judicial statistics show, the issue of overwork among Taiwanese people spares no one in the legal profession. The average monthly case load assigned to judges is frighteningly high, and the time actually allocated to each case is truly limited. In major high-profile cases, even when the reasoning spans hundreds of pages and judges believe they have steadfastly adhered to the law and judged in accordance with it, because the outcome does not meet social expectations and effective communication is lacking, the painstaking effort ultimately results in social revulsion. At the crest of the wave immediately following a controversial ruling, if one "admits" to being a judge outside, they cannot escape a round of sarcastic taunts. Judges feel aggrieved, believing that the people do not understand the law, and that based on their legal conviction, they have stood firm on legal boundaries and judged according to the law, only to be rejected by society. Judges protest: Must the judiciary become a service industry, abandoning its own professional legal opinions to render judgments entirely based on the public's legal sentiment? Misunderstandings between judges and the public are deeply entrenched, and the knot between them seems difficult to untie.

In fact, it is not only judges who encounter such dilemmas. When the author and friends around them explain these controversial rulings, they also frequently encounter massive obstacles that must be overcome. Whether dealing with the presumption of innocence, the two Covenants, or rules of evidence, the only way to be understood and accepted is to patiently reason and argue with the listener repeatedly; there is no other shortcut. Legal professionals have undergone legal training and naturally possess a different way of interpreting the law compared to the general public. How to avoid having one's ears blocked by one's own professionalism—or even becoming self-important due to that professionalism, resulting in an inability to listen to the public's voice—and how to guide the public to approach the essence of law rather than constantly relying on a naive sense of justice is indeed a monumental task.

The Judiciary Must Fulfill Its Duty to Explain

Although judicial satisfaction has plummeted, indicating that the public is fundamentally disappointed with judges, this does not automatically mean there are no good judges in Taiwan. We believe that compared to the past authoritarian era, good judges certainly constitute the majority. We must, of course, single out and eliminate bad judges to increase the yield rate of good judgments; but when a good judge makes a correct ruling, the judiciary must communicate with society as much as possible.

For example, when the verdict of a major high-profile case is announced, the core reasoning of the judgment should be handed over to the media simultaneously. The summary provided to the media must, of course, use "commoner" and "plain" language, while also providing opportunities for the public to question it, such as holding press conferences with open live Q&A sessions. Going a step further, "lazy packages" (infographic explainers) can be produced and posted online to allow citizens to quickly understand the content in a short time, keep pace with the times, break away from conventional thinking, and make good use of media and internet tools. This would make the mental conviction and process of forming a judgment open and transparent, facilitating the persuasion of the public that the judgment is lawful and just. It would help society understand the intertwining factual contexts and legal applications within the verdict, empowering them to independently judge whether to trust the outcome. This prevents society—in the absence of accessible materials such as judgment reasoning—from having to judge the justice of a ruling and comment on the integrity and conduct of judges based solely on case facts reported by news media and excerpted judgment conclusions. Only when the public trusts a judgment can the spirit of the law applied in that verdict truly be realized.

Public Participation in Judicial Reform

From the distance between judgments and the people, we can glimpse that closing this gap is definitely one of the top priorities for judicial reform. With the new administration taking office, among the judicial reform policies put forward by the Minister of Justice—whether setting up websites to collect public grievances or convening a "National Judicial Reform Conference" that allows direct public participation—the goal is none other than to let the voices of ordinary citizens truly enter the process of judicial reform. In a social atmosphere where the public generally distrusts legal professionals, if the judiciary and the people have a genuine opportunity for dialogue during the national conference so that citizens are not isolated outside the system, the results of judicial reform can possibly be trusted by the people. The process of mutual understanding between the public and the judiciary may not easily show results in the short term, but only if the judiciary takes the initiative to move a little closer to the people and open the door to communication will it ultimately untie each other's knots and reverse the downward trend through accumulated efforts.

※ This article was published in PNN PTS News Issues Center