Reflections on the Hsu Case Forum: Why Do So Many People Refuse to Trust the Judiciary?

Actually, about two months ago, I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Hsu Tzu-chiang speak shortly after his acquittal became final. I still vividly remember the legal aid lawyers accompanying him and every single detail described in the video at that time—whether it pertained to litigation controversies or litigation reforms. It made me wonder: aside from public fervor, what else is the main reason for the decline in the court's credibility? Why on earth do so many people refuse to trust the judiciary? Is there any factor other than judges failing to satisfy the public with the length of prison sentences?

"Wrongful conviction" is certainly a major factor contributing to the decline in public trust in the judiciary. Aside from the cases viewed in class and the numerous wrongful convictions accumulated in Taiwan in recent years, these miscarriage of justice cases invariably stem from issues during searches, investigations, and interrogations. The evidence gathered from these problematic processes and presented to judges also seems to profoundly influence their rulings. The "principle of presumption of innocence" sounds simple in theory, but when these issues are chained together, the evidence received by judges is inevitably tainted by them, potentially leading to so-called "wrongful convictions." Therefore, for this principle to be fully implemented, we must tackle the entire criminal justice system—starting from police officers and prosecutors all the way to judges. Broadly defined judicial personnel at every level must uphold the presumption of innocence in handling cases, conducting investigations, and carrying out trials. Only then can we achieve the full realization of the "principle of presumption of innocence."

Furthermore, there are two main issues regarding the closed nature of the judicial system and the inability of judges to exercise completely independent adjudication. First, regarding the rumors about promotions and performance evaluations (the closed nature of the judicial system), judges are indeed influenced to varying degrees by higher courts when making rulings, out of fear that delivering unconventional or poorly received judgments might lead to blacklisting by other judges or reduced promotion opportunities. Perhaps this situation will gradually diminish as judges become younger in modern times, but true independent adjudication can only be declared when this completely disappears, allowing every judge to judge with absolute independence.

Moreover, another massive factor affecting judicial trials is the media. Biased media reporting generates a great deal of public passion regarding cases, and this fervor may eventually, to some extent, influence judges' judgments. In today's fast-paced and instant era, facing lengthy judgments, indictments, or investigative procedures, most media content tends to be shallow and simplistic (with only a small fraction of media outlets engaging in in-depth follow-up reporting). Yet, this actually has a tremendous impact on defendants, plaintiffs, and judicial personnel alike.

Unneutral news information laden with subjective opinions is a major catalyst for the public's dissatisfaction with final judicial verdicts. To those holding forth or arbitrarily criticizing in front of televisions and newspapers: have you truly understood the cause and effect of the entire matter? Have you genuinely examined the case-related documents in depth? If judicial sentencing is tailored merely to satisfy public opinion, can this rule-of-law society still be considered a true rule-of-law society?

I remember when I was eating with my classmate F in college, F raised numerous criticisms of the acquittal decision in the Ting Hsin case at the time. Because I was right in the middle of preparing for graduate school exams, I happened to look into the relevant judgments and the grounds for acquittal. However, ever since the investigative stage, news media continuously broadcast one-sided messages unfavorable to the defendant (of course, there were many other commentaries at the time which I will not elaborate on here). My main point is to express that mass media exerts an influence on both audiences and society as a whole.

Finally, I am deeply grateful for this lecture, which made me realize that there is still room for improvement in the judicial system. I also naturally aspire for my future self, regardless of what legal practice I engage in, to always retain a touch of "humanity" and never forget the original purpose for which I strived.