What Play is the Judge in the Hsieh Yi-han Case Performing?

On September 5, the high-profile Bali double murder case defendant Hsieh Yi-han received her verdict in the second instance. On one side stood the so-called femme fatale, while on the other, the media hailed the presiding Judge Chiu at the High Court as a crime-solving hero. Featuring a smiling photo of him, the news headline read, 'All Five Survival Scripts Demolished by Judge.' Citing Judge Chiu's remarks, the media portrayed him as both rational and empathetic, noting that his over-100-page verdict aimed to urge the perpetrator to 'honestly face herself,' thereby defining the 'value of justice'...

Putting Hsieh Yi-han's crimes aside, and leaving aside the issue of sentencing severity, Judge Chiu—who fancied himself an envoy of justice—blatantly disregarded procedural justice itself! His questionable conduct began right at the start of taking the case, when he presented Hsieh Yi-han with a book supporting the death penalty, Struggling with Despair, and grandly remarked: 'It is said that not crying upon reading the Memorial on the Expediting of the Expedition shows a lack of loyalty, and not crying upon reading the Farewell Letter to My Wife shows a lack of ruthlessness. If you do not cry upon reading this book, you are heartless.' From the perspective of the victims' families, this translated Japanese book clearly favored the death penalty. The question is, how can a judge publicly leak their preconceived notions? By gifting the book, Judge Chiu violated the presumption of innocence upon which the judiciary is founded!

Profaning the Presumption of Innocence

Gift-giving may seem like a trivial matter, but what it profaned was the inviolable principle of the presumption of innocence. On this ground alone, Judge Chiu was unfit to serve as the judge assigned to this bench. Strangely enough, the legal community remained uniformly silent, with no one raising questions regarding professional ethics.

During the court proceedings, the dialogue on the bench was particularly absurd. The judge's intimidating statements included: 'You say you want to grant justice to the victims' families as soon as possible, so why did you still appeal?' He then pressed further: 'Can you accept being sentenced to death?' and 'What do you think is the meaning of being sentenced to death?' At one point, he rebuked angrily in court: 'You take so long to think about every question, I don't know whether to believe what you say.' A judge is supposed to adjudicate cases based on evidence, but aside from posing questions that left people speechless, this Judge Chiu was eager to hear expressions of remorse from the defendant. At the same time, it arouses curiosity: if Hsieh Yi-han had covered her face and wept bitterly in court, appearing to have a sudden change of heart, would that have met the judge's expectations? Are our perceptions of the judiciary forever stuck at the stage of 'My Lord, I was wrong,' lingering in the era of Justice Bao sitting in judgment under a bright mirror?

At times, this judge transformed into a gossip reporter in the courtroom, asking a slew of questions such as: 'Why do none of your friends come to observe the trial?' and 'There are no media here, what does your boyfriend say to you [during prison visits]?' After all, the defendant also possesses basic human rights. Were these kinds of questions an expression of intimate concern, or were they verbal harassment?

In the end, the judgment text is filled with arbitrary conclusions. It reads: 'The defendant still failed to comprehend the true meaning that other people's lives should be respected even after committing the crime.' The problem is, is the deep inner world of the defendant truly something outsiders can know to be within the realm of comprehension?

Severely Damaging Taiwan's Human Rights Standards

What is unsettling is precisely the arbitrariness revealed in the judgment, which stated that Hsieh Yi-han 'does not feel a shred of remorse, nor any sense of repentance.' How dare anyone speak with such absolute certainty about an inner world as intricate as a maze? One must realize that the human heart is waters strewn with reefs, and criminal motives are often far from simple on the surface. Judges should at least maintain a sense of awe and hold a passionate dedication to exploring the psychological layers of a crime....

Judge Chiu was similarly arbitrary regarding the field of psychology. For example, the judgment stated: 'This court considers that in-depth psychotherapy does not encompass propositions that might possibly prevent the defendant's "risk of reoffending." A judge is not a psychology professional; does this categorical and absolute assertion not carry the risk of overstepping one's bounds?
God, hero, and moral preceptor... What kind of play is this judge performing?

The judge filled his verdict with empty talk of justice, while simultaneously laying bare his arrogance, arbitrariness, and lack of professional ethics. Not only is this judicial record a disgrace to a democratic society, but regrettably, it is of no help whatsoever in piecing together the truth! Whether viewed from the perspective of the grievances of the victims' families or the plight of the defendant, it falls short of even the bare minimum of justice. The judge, whom the media crowned as an 'envoy of justice,' is turning the courtroom into a farce, thereby severely damaging Taiwan's human rights standards.