Wrongful convictions are an inevitable part of the judicial system. Because judges are human, not gods, humans do not possess omniscient capabilities, cannot turn back time, can be misled, hold biases, and make mistakes. Therefore, judges will naturally make mistakes. As long as judicial trials are judged by humans, wrongful convictions will never disappear.

To minimize the risk of wrongful convictions, various institutional designs are put in place to prevent errors. The design of criminal procedural law is essentially an error-prevention mechanism derived from this line of thinking. However, when error-prevention mechanisms fail or become ineffective, mistakes happen and wrongful convictions emerge.

The causes of wrongful convictions can be broadly simplified into errors of law and errors of fact. Because judgments are primarily composed of facts and law, when a wrongful conviction occurs, either the facts were mistaken or the law was misunderstood. Effectively addressing these issues will naturally reduce the occurrence of wrongful convictions to a certain extent.

Read Full Report

Looking at the original content of this judicial issue, it actually addresses the problem of police officers frequently disobeying the law during duty or case investigations. However, as discussions progressed, issues such as police discipline, police evaluation systems, police training, police overwork, and various other factors generally believed to potentially affect police law enforcement were incorporated.

Our discussions are not limited to "illegality" in the strict sense, but also include situations walking the gray area between legality and illegality, or situations that are not illegal but "improper." Including "gray area" and "improper" situations in the discussion is because gray areas or improprieties in law enforcement behavior also involve violations of people's rights and interests. Furthermore, the reason these fall merely into law enforcement gray areas or improprieties may be due to incomplete relevant regulations, making them all the more worthy of discussion.

Regarding situations where police law enforcement may be illegal or improper, they can be discussed from three dimensions: duty execution, criminal investigation, and police discipline.

Duty execution refers to the various operational tasks performed by police officers, which are relatively limited here to work related to maintaining public order, such as patrols, inspections, and questioning. Such duties may involve the immediate use of coercive force against citizens, easily leading to illegal or improper situations, and are therefore specially brought out for clarification.

Criminal investigation is also considered a broad category of duty execution, but it is singled out for discussion because the backend of criminal investigation leads to criminal punishment—involving sending people to prison or even executing the death penalty. Making a mistake easily leads to miscarriages of justice. In addition, to ensure criminal investigations proceed smoothly, the state also permits various investigative actions that further infringe upon the defendant's rights. At this point, it is necessary to discuss what kinds of investigative actions are permissible and which are not. This part is particularly important in the judiciary, so potential illegal or improper aspects of criminal investigation will be handled in particular depth.

Read Full Report

Regarding the issue that vulnerable groups need more assistance in the judiciary, the initial question that must be addressed is: What is "vulnerability"? Depending on how vulnerability is defined, the objects of analysis will vary. What constitutes vulnerability was also discussed in the preparatory meeting on June 21, where the loosest definition was ultimately adopted—that is, due to other social circumstances rather than the evidence of the case itself during the judicial process, a person is placed in a relatively disadvantaged or vulnerable position.

The concept of "vulnerability" is inherently relative and must be referenced within contextual settings. Taking a murderer as an example, at the exact moment of committing murder, the perpetrator may be in a position of strength while the victim is vulnerable; however, after the murderer is arrested, facing a wave of societal condemnation where everyone believes they should be tried summarily and executed by firing squad, they are relatively vulnerable when confronting public opinion and prosecutors representing the state as prosecutors. If the relativity of vulnerability is acknowledged, the next question is: Should legal aid resources be withheld from someone simply because, despite being vulnerable, they are a "bad person"? This actually touches upon the fundamental thinking of human rights protection—namely, is the right to obtain assistance from a lawyer the right of "every single person" or only of "good people"? From the perspective of human rights protection, it is unquestionably the former.

It is hoped that following this discussion, we can see the needs of more vulnerable groups and improve their circumstances in the judiciary.

Read Full Report

Many people have heard that in Taiwan, prisons have become "crime graduate schools," where many individuals learn more criminal skills after entering prison and emerge as major criminals upon release. What on earth is wrong with Taiwan's prison system? Perhaps we must begin discussing this from the fundamental goal of the prison system—"social reintegration."

Social reintegration refers to assisting inmates in returning to and adapting to social life through various measures. Currently, our country has established the Agency of Corrections specifically responsible for prison administration; however, it still fails to provide comprehensive reintegration plans tailored to individual inmates—that is, measures that seamlessly and continuously assist them in re-adapting to social life from in-prison treatment to post-release community-based treatment. The lack of such reintegration plans involves structural causes across all levels from society to the government.

Summarizing this issue, it can be understood as the public feeling that court judgments do not align with the expectations of the general public.

This involves issues such as the public's inaccurate grasp of the judiciary, inconsistencies between the public's legal sentiments and the values inherent in the law itself, as well as legislative quality and judicial decision-making.

To put it further, Taiwan's courts lack a mechanism for active communication with the public, leading to an ever-widening gap between court judgments and public expectations.

Read Full Report