The Judicial Yuan's Ten Reasons for Rejecting the Jury System Are All Wrong!

In order to pass the draft Organic Act on the Participation of Citizens in Criminal Trials submitted to the Legislative Yuan, the Judicial Yuan grandly put forward ten reasons for rejecting the jury system. However, these ten reasons are patently false and clearly intended to mislead the Legislative Yuan and the general public.

Regarding the Judicial Yuan's first reason, joint deliberation between professional judges and lay judges is precisely the most heavily criticized flaw of the lay participation system (lay judge system) promoted by the Judicial Yuan. This is because, to lay judges lacking legal expertise, professional judges carry authoritative weight in the recognition of facts and application of law. In the public's understanding, professional judges are individuals possessing legal expertise who have long engaged in adjudicative duties, whereas lay judges participate in judicial affairs only on an ad hoc, occasional basis. Consequently, placing professional judges and lay judges together often results in lay judges unconsciously allowing themselves to be guided by professional judges in making their determinations.

The operational result of such a dynamic is effectively that professional judges make the judgment, while the participating citizens are relegated to merely rubber-stamping it. What is even worse is that lay judges may not even realize they are being guided, nor do they realize they are merely acting as a rubber stamp.

However, under the jury system, the focus of jurors is on fact-finding—specifically, determining what actually happened, such as whether the defendant was at the crime scene or what reasons the defendant had for taking the money. Fact-finding depends on each individual's interpretation of evidence based on their personal life experience. The competence of professional judges is not superior to that of ordinary citizens; yet, under the guidance of judges wielding judicial authority, the life experience of citizens is constantly diluted, reducing them to merely concurring with professional judges and leaving only a rubber-stamping effect.

Second, regarding the issue of a "Hung Jury" raised by the Judicial Yuan, it is not a problem at all. A hung jury refers to a situation where a jury fails to reach the statutory decision threshold—such as in some countries where a guilty verdict requires a consensus and unanimous decision among all jurors. If the system is designed around a unanimity requirement, it might indeed encounter the problem raised by the Judicial Yuan. However, various countries around the world adopt different standards, and during discussions between the Judicial Yuan and civil society organizations in 2019, various voting thresholds or alternative voting transition methods were also proposed. For the Judicial Yuan to use this as a reason is fundamentally an act of acting in bad faith and misinterpreting how the jury system operates.

Regarding the third and fourth reasons raised by the Judicial Yuan, observing the jury system designs across the world reveals various operational models as well. There are institutional designs that require writing judgments (such as in Spain), and designs where juries participate in sentencing (such as in some U.S. states). These are actually technical matters that can be adjusted under the jury system. For the Judicial Yuan to cite these as reasons why the jury system is unacceptable—does it mean the Judicial Yuan failed to do its homework, or is it deliberately misleading the Legislative Yuan and the public?

As for the Judicial Yuan using courtroom layout as a reason to reject the jury system, it is even more baffling. Adopting a lay participation system also creates a need for courtroom configuration; in other words, regardless of whether a jury system or a lay participation system is adopted, there is a need to reconfigure courtrooms. Under the same requirement, to view lay participation as feasible while viewing the jury system as unfeasible is simply opposing something purely for the sake of opposition.

The Judicial Yuan also mentioned that the jury system might conflict with Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 378. In truth, the Judicial Yuan is trying to imply that the jury system is unconstitutional. However, this argument has been refuted countless times. Article 80 of the Constitution stipulates that judges shall conduct trials in accordance with law, but it does not restrict judges from being exclusively professional judges rather than laypersons (lay judges or jurors). The Judicial Yuan's claim that the jury system is unconstitutional by going beyond constitutional provisions is evidently yet another argument of opposing for the sake of opposition.

The Judicial Yuan further mentioned that the jury system originated from resisting ruling classes failing to judge according to law, and therefore cannot be applied in our legal system. This reason given by the Judicial Yuan is even more absurd. Every system has its origins. Regardless of how the jury system originated, it is currently one of the universally recognized and utilized adjudication systems in the world, and has nothing to do with whether the ruling class fails to judge according to law. Are we to believe that countries currently using the jury system, such as the UK, the US, and Canada, are all operating under the premise of resisting the state's failure to judge according to law? The Judicial Yuan's bizarre logic is entirely incomprehensible.

Regarding the shortcomings of the jury system, there are indeed criticisms in the literature as cited by the Judicial Yuan. However, every system inherently has its pros and cons, and no perfect system exists. The lay participation system also suffers from severe flaws, such as the authoritative guidance of judges where citizens only serve a rubber-stamping function; moreover, under such an effect, trials are still essentially conducted by professional judges. The lay participation system suffers from such obvious flaws, yet the Judicial Yuan remains silent on them, choosing only to highlight the shortcomings of the jury system. This is undoubtedly a despicable tactic to deceive the public and the Legislative Yuan.

Finally, regarding the global trends and public opinion polls mentioned by the Judicial Yuan, there are numerous countries internationally that use the jury system, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea..., and even Russia has introduced the jury system. What constitutes a global trend is truly difficult to generalize. As for the public opinion polls, the fundamental issue lies in the reliability and validity of the Judicial Yuan's survey questionnaires. Before the public clearly understands the differences, advantages, and disadvantages between the jury system and the lay participation system, any polling conducted by the Judicial Yuan is utterly meaningless. The difference between the lay participation system and the jury system is actually a legal-professional issue. Without clear explanations and descriptions, when members of the public fill out questionnaires, there is simply no way to determine whether their understanding of the lay participation system is the lay judge system defined by the Judicial Yuan, or the jury system seen in American movies and TV shows.

In reality, no system is perfect. Is the jury system superior to the lay participation system? Is the lay participation system more suited to our country than the jury system? No one can say for sure; both the jury and lay participation systems have their respective pros and cons. Taiwan is currently at a crossroads of institutional choice. The parallel adoption of both systems proposed by civil society organizations aims precisely to enable a correct choice of institutional design suited to our national conditions. Without properly evaluating whether the jury system or the lay participation system is more suitable for our country, the Judicial Yuan rashly adopted the lay participation system and even put forward erroneous arguments as reasons to oppose the jury system. Such shoddy legislative methodology is truly difficult to agree with.

※ This article was published in ETtoday News Cloud on April 28, 2020