How to Solve Cases Without Torture?

In judicial reform discussions, besides judges, prosecutors, and lawyers who receive the most attention, the starting point of the judicial process—the police—should not be forgotten. Especially for those who have long engaged in human rights work, how the police and the Investigation Bureau conduct investigations clearly has a profound impact.

I remember not long ago during the Liu Pang-yu blood case and the Peng Wan-ju murder case, the Criminal Investigation Bureau traveled afar to invite Dr. Henry Lee (Li Ch'ang-yü), an internationally renowned forensic expert, to assist with investigation and appraisal. Taiwan suddenly sparked a wave of "deduction fever," marveling at how true perpetrators could be determined from minute evidence such as bloodstains, hair, and shoe prints. Finally, besides Justice Pao-style harsh torture, we had another choice—scientific investigation. It was also from that time that the general public came to understand that our country's police system completely disregarded criminal forensics. Not only was the budget zero, but it also meant that regardless of whether the police had the heart for scientific investigation, fundamentally they lacked the ability to investigate scientifically. Therefore, at the frontline scenes, we could see onlookers and media reporters wandering in and out. Even the police themselves had no concept of evidence collection or crime scene assessment, casually touching scene evidence, smoking, reading newspapers, destroying the original appearance of the scene, and so on. For advanced countries' judiciaries that emphasize scientific evidence, this was simply unimaginable. Under the premise that scientific evidence had already been destroyed and could no longer "let the evidence speak," the police had no choice but to blindly seek the most primitive evidence—confessions—to pursue case-solving performance records.

Therefore, while the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly states in black and white that a confession cannot be used as the sole evidence, we must first answer: when the police today want to solve a case, what ability do they have to present evidence other than a confession?

This involves two dimensions of problems: one is a problem of concept, and the other is a problem of methodology. In terms of concept, the most typical investigation model currently used by the police for major criminal cases is: suspect exposed -> crime scene reenactment -> suspect apologizes to family members -> police announce case solved -> collect case-solving bonuses. Yet the general public, standing as media audiences, never has the opportunity to question: if the police announce the case is solved right now, then what is the court for? Is the meaning of the presumption of innocence rendered a dead letter? And if a suspect is later proven innocent in court, or the crime and punishment do not match, who will restore their original lives for them? This kind of practice, which actually has nothing to do with "solving a case," often becomes the reason why the suspect is "forced" to be convicted in court later. Judges can only helplessly ask the parties involved, "Why did you apologize to the family members?" because the prior "preparatory actions" of the police have already deprived the court of the room to make a not-guilty verdict. Here, the police are rarely educated on what "human rights" mean. When "case-solving performance" surpasses "discovering the truth," before we even have time to tell who the "bad guys" are, we have already uniformly "wiped them out." How can we talk extravagantly about fair trials and realizing justice?

In terms of methodology, emphasizing "solving cases with brains" is actually a requirement for facing a new society. Except for flagrant offenders who are out of luck, all organized crime, white-collar crime, and premeditated crime clearly require more "intelligence" than "force." Therefore, establishing a national-level forensic research center, improving the police's general ability to handle scientific evidence, and cultivating specialized forensic talents are all key factors in making torture disappear from police culture.

I look forward to the day when we demand that all "bad guys" be brought to justice, and our police can shoulder the role of those eyes of justice, correctly distinguishing who are the ones that should face the law and who are the ones that should be protected, becoming the starting point of realizing justice along the path of the judicial process.