The Quasi-Adjudication System Leaves the Public Confused

Recently, during a meeting with judicial reform groups, President Ma stated that the "quasi-adjudication system" is the first step toward public participation in trials. Citing Japan and South Korea, he argued that public participation in trials can enhance public trust in the judiciary and make people more accepting of judicial verdicts. However, compared to the reforms of public participation systems in Japan and South Korea—which did not merely enact a "quasi-adjudication statute" like our policy planning, where citizens simply sit in court to observe proceedings and resolutions, but instead revitalized trials by drastically changing "criminal procedures" to empower citizens to take the bench, participate independently in trials, and deliberate on resolutions—our approach falls far short.

Still Confused About Trial Participation

Unlike the stereotyped and standardized products of professional judges who come straight from "the family gate, school gate, and official gate," lay participation draws upon "randomly selected" citizen representatives, bringing together diverse local perspectives, colorful life experiences, and the inclusion of multiple values. Therefore, in corruption trials of political figures like Ch'en Shui-bian and Lin I-shih, professional judges in traditional trials act arbitrarily, nitpicking over "substantial influence" and the "statutory duties doctrine." However, controversies related to lay participation trials are handed over to the "people as bosses," allowing them to jointly determine through prosecution-defense debate and argumentation whether a public official's acceptance of gifts exceeds common social sense and custom, thereby violating the public's commission and trust. At the same time, by drawing citizen representatives to participate in trials, Taiwan's indigenous interpretation and insistence on a "clean and competent government" can be demonstrated, warning public figures not to resort to appeals of grievance to cut themselves off from public opinion, while safeguarding the democratic legitimacy of judicial trials.

In other words, the current policy of promoting the single statute known as the "Pilot Statute for Public Quasi-Adjudication" merely allows citizens to sit with judges in court, high above others, but fails to coordinate supporting amendments to "criminal trials." Without reforming the law so that legal laypersons can examine whether trial procedures allow them to "see and hear for themselves" and "immediately understand their meaning," public participation in trials remains like looking at flowers through a fog, with the estrangement still intact. After all, ordinary citizens and legal laypersons participating in trials have "no" legal knowledge, "no" litigation experience, "no" professional training, and "no" sufficient time compared to professional judges. Therefore, through criminal procedural reforms that are "close to the people and convenient for the people," court hearings can become short, rapid, and approachable; factual disputes can be simple, understandable, and solvable by laypersons; and right, wrong, and justice can reflect public opinion and conform to common sense.

Recently, the pros and cons of various bills on "lay participation" debated in the Legislative Yuan have mainly focused on whether lay participants should "express opinions" and "vote," arguing over the pros and cons of "jury trials" versus "lay judge trials," and focusing controversies on how to carve up the judicial powers of professional judges. Likewise, they have failed to examine the existing deficiencies and traditional ills of criminal trials. In other words, the current judicial trial system has given rise to wrongful and suspicious cases such as Chiang Kuo-ch'ing and Su Chien-he. Without matching comprehensive amendments to the "Code of Criminal Procedure," lay participation supplemented by Taiwan's characteristic "media commentators" and "populism" will only make the institutional evils even more entrenched and harder to reverse.

"Only Letting You Look, Not Letting You Judge"

Lay participation shapes local social fairness and justice from the "bottom up," and the people as bosses "taking charge" deters public figures from manipulating the judiciary. Therefore, facing low public trust in trials, the quasi-adjudication system—which "only lets you look, not lets you judge"—is truly inadequate. Instead, the government should consider judicial reforms in criminal procedures so that lay participation is built on "not being afraid of you looking, but demanding that you judge."

※Originally published on 2014.2.25 in Apple Daily