Serious Statement Regarding the "Evaluation of Judges and Prosecutors"

Photo / 2011 Press Conference of the Judges and Prosecutors Evaluation Act Promotion Alliance

1. The JRF Advocated for Citizens to Directly Request Evaluations When Promoting the Judges Act

When the JRF promoted the Judges Act in 2010, the greatest difference between its position on the judge and prosecutor evaluation system and the official version was its advocacy for "citizens to directly request evaluations," which is proven by the draft version.

2. Media Quotations and Reports Are Erroneous and Should Be Corrected

Today's report by Mirror Media and the United Daily News quoting Professor Lin Yu-hsiung—which directly claimed that our foundation previously advocated for "specifically requesting the addition of Article 35, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4" to obtain evaluation qualifications and "monopolizing the business of reviewing and evaluating judicial officers," and that we have now changed our position—consists of unverified and erroneous reports that should be corrected!

Attachments

• 2010 Judges Act Draft
• 2011-5-19 President Lai, Has Your "Judges Act" Degraded into a "Judges Insurance Act"?! Press Conference of the Judges and Prosecutors Evaluation Act Promotion Alliance
• 2011-6-13 JRF Statement Regarding the Legislative Progress of the Judges Act Draft

Press Contact

Judicial Reform Foundation / Kao Jung-chih, Executive Director (02)2523-1178