Riding a Jet, Yen Ch'ing-piao Leaves Prison

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Yen Ch'ing-piao was granted parole and left Taichung Prison last Friday. I imagined other inmates reading the news about Yen Ch'ing-piao, saying to their roommates with a mix of envy and bitterness, "He's Yen Ch'ing-piao! It would be news only if his parole application were rejected!"

There are two noteworthy points regarding this parole case. First, the prison authorities deemed that Yen Ch'ing-piao demonstrated good behavior, passing his parole application on the very first submission. According to statistics from the Ministry of Justice, the average execution rate in prison for inmates released on parole in recent years is about 80%. Although parole thresholds differ under old and new laws (the old law stipulated that first-time offenders could apply for parole after serving more than one-third of their sentence, and recidivists after two-thirds; the new law changed this to one-half for first-time offenders and two-thirds for recidivists), regardless of the length of time served, concrete evidence of genuine remorse ("shuen-huei-shih-chu") is still required to pass parole. While some have applied 42 times without success, others walk out on their first try.

The four characters for "evidence of genuine remorse" sound like concrete, evidence-based criteria, but their content is quite abstract, leaving prisons with discretionary power. Procedural controversies over parole reviews often arise in cases deemed to lack "evidence of genuine remorse": "Clearly the proportion of the sentence served has been exceeded, and there are no disciplinary points deducted, so why is parole still denied?" In the past, parole was regarded as a privilege and an extra-judicial zone where the judiciary could hardly intervene. However, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 691 has clarified that if one is dissatisfied with the rejection of parole, judicial remedies may be sought. Yet this path of litigation is extremely difficult for people inside prison. Once they seek relief, it startles the higher-ups and they are instead treated as troublesome individuals who must wait even longer to get out. Moreover, the lack of litigation resources (absence of professional assistance) and high litigation costs (court fees, escort fees) force those whose parole is rejected simply to wait for the next application cycle. Lacking effective oversight by a neutral body, it comes as no surprise that Yen Ch'ing-piao passed on his first try, while ordinary people being quietly rejected a few times is just par for the course.

The second point, and the one that was slightly startling this time around, was that it took only four days from the issuance of the parole official document by Taichung Prison to Mr. Yen walking out of Taichung Prison. According to press reports, the fastest process previously took two weeks, and even media reporters miscalculated, assuming the earliest release would be late June. But this time he came out in four days, seemingly creating a "Yen Ch'ing-piao barrier," leaving one to wonder just how big of a figure the next person to break this barrier will need to be?

If passing parole on the first try is due to evidence of genuine remorse, then how is the four-day document turnaround to be explained? Exactly how many parole cases did prisons across Taiwan submit to the Agency of Corrections on June 3rd? How many cases did the Agency of Corrections approve on June 5th, and how many people were released from prison on June 6th? The Agency of Corrections should explain this to the general public. Regardless of whether anyone else boarded the same jet as Yen Ch'ing-piao, to avoid casting doubt on whether the Agency of Corrections created a special exception, the Agency should not allow the Yen Ch'ing-piao barrier to stand there, waiting for the next VIP to break it. If it is not a privilege, everyone who passes parole should have the right to ride a jet and leave prison.