Trial by Jury and Taiwanese Public Opinion

In promoting public participation in trials, the Judicial Yuan exclusively favors the lay-participatory system (Guan Shen) while rejecting all alternatives. However, because lay participants lack voting power on final verdicts, the system's institutional significance has consistently been questioned. Why the Judicial Yuan does not adopt a jury system based on public decision-making remains a recurring question. In response, the Judicial Yuan has repeatedly stated that public opinion polls do not support a jury system, with disapproval rates as high as 80%. Yet, did the Judicial Yuan provide a comprehensive explanation of the jury system during these polls, and did respondents truly understand it? This determines whether the polls accurately reflect public opinion. Furthermore, beyond horizontal public opinion surveys across space and time, we should also examine the historical formation of public opinion vertically to uncover its true direction. As we mark the 69th anniversary of Taiwan's retrocession, it is worth looking back at how Taiwanese society has expressed its views on the jury system through representative bodies since the retrocession.

In 1954, during the era of the Provisional Taiwan Provincial Assembly, direct popular election of provincial assembly members was adopted for the first time, serving as Taiwan's highest representative body at the time. Shortly after the assembly convened that year, Provincial Assemblyman Hsu Shih-hsien proposed that the government guarantee human rights and establish a jury system. The rationale for the proposal stated: Modern civilized countries have already established jury systems; if our country were to adopt a jury system now, it would sufficiently demonstrate our determination to safeguard human rights, enhance our international reputation, and prove especially beneficial to the cause of opposing communism and resisting Russia. The assembly resolved to forward the proposal to the Provincial Government for submission to the central government for adoption.

In 1959, the Provisional Taiwan Provincial Assembly was reorganized into the Taiwan Provincial Assembly. At that time, Provincial Assemblyman Kuo Kuo-chi also submitted a proposal urging the central government to enact a Jury Act. His rationale was that the jury system allows jurors to participate in hearing the facts of criminal cases in the courtroom, using an impartial, fair, and conscientious third-party judgment to assess the facts, after which judges apply the law to render a judgment, thereby further preventing miscarriages of justice and reducing wrongful conviction compensation costs. This proposal was also passed by the assembly.

In fact, from 1954 until 1971 when Taiwan withdrew from the United Nations and the nation fell into turmoil once again, throughout these eighteen years, the Provincial Assembly had proposals, resolutions, or assemblyman interpellations urging the central government to implement a jury system nearly every year. Assemblymen who co-signed or interpellated proposals at the time included Kuo Yu-hsin, Wu Po-hsiung, Kao Yu-jen, and Yu Ch'en Yueh-ying—figures whose names may still be remembered by contemporary society. Among them, in 1963, a proposal for the early implementation of a jury system submitted by Provincial Assemblyman Yang Yu-ch'eng noted in its review opinion: This proposal has been raised in all previous general sessions of this assembly, yet it has not been adopted to date. Whether to continue making recommendations is submitted to the assembly for discussion. The assembly ultimately resolved to forward it to the government for submission to the central government for adoption. The public's persistent commitment to adopting a jury system at that time is clearly evident from this.

Examining the past helps us understand the future; the formation of contemporary public opinion should have traceable historical contexts and background causes. Why was Taiwanese society's anticipation for the jury system so profound in the past, yet today 80% of the polled public does not support it? Furthermore, regarding the reasons why the central government could not accept proposals to adopt a jury system in the past, have the conditions changed now that the parliament and the president are directly elected by the people and political parties have alternated in power? All these issues are worthy of deep reflection by legislators and the general public who will participate in trials in the future, as we strive to complete the final mile of judicial democratization with prudence and stability.