Official Stubbornness on Lay Judge System Met with Scholars' Rebuttal and Clarification—Day 12 of the Sit-in Protest Outside the Legislative Yuan Against the Inclusion of the National Lay Judge Bill in the Extraordinary Session

The 'Grand Alliance for the Parallel Trial of Jury and Lay Judge Systems'—composed of NGOs such as the Judicial Reform Foundation and the Taiwan Association for Parliamentarian Jury—held a press conference at 9:30 a.m. on July 10 in front of the Legislative Yuan's main entrance titled 'Official Stubbornness on Lay Judge System Met with Scholars' Rebuttal and Clarification.' Following yesterday's press conference, the Alliance continued to refute external misconceptions and criticisms regarding the parallel implementation of both systems, inviting scholars to explain the spirit of the jury system.

On July 5, the Judicial Yuan released a press release titled 'Judicial Human Rights Cannot Be Tested; "National Judges" Integrate the Advantages of Both Jury and Lay Judge Systems,' pointing out that polls show over 70% of Taiwanese citizens agree that discussing trial cases together with judges empowers citizens to voice their thoughts more courageously, and that joint discussions with judges enhance case comprehension to render judgments. It also listed six criticisms arguing that 'the two systems cannot be implemented in parallel because the jury system is fraught with bottlenecks.' Yesterday (July 9), the Alliance already addressed the flaws in the poll and clarified that the national judge system is essentially a lay judge system.

Chairman Lin Yung-sung (林永頌) of the Judicial Reform Foundation first reported on the legislative review progress in the Legislative Yuan. During the legislative consultations on July 3 and July 5, as many as 99 out of 113 provisions were reserved, demonstrating that this system is indeed highly controversial. The New Power Party advocates for the jury system, the Taiwan People's Party advocates for the parallel implementation of both systems, and the Kuomintang also does not oppose parallel implementation. Currently, the Legislative Yuan is reviewing personnel appointments for the Control Yuan and Examination Yuan, and will resume deliberation on judicial reform systems on July 22. Lawyer Lin appealed that since the Democratic Progressive Party holds an absolute majority in governance, it should reflect on the arguments it made back when it was in the opposition urging the Kuomintang to exercise restraint, rather than resorting to the tyranny of the majority at every turn, and instead give thorough consideration to all perspectives.

Secondly, addressing the concern that parallel implementation would impose a burden on judicial personnel in learning a new system, Chairman Lin stated that law enforcement personnel for any system require preparation and learning; however, regardless of which trial plan is adopted, there will be a two-year preparation period, with formal implementation scheduled for 2023. Furthermore, since the two systems share many identical or similar elements, parallel implementation will not impose an excessive learning burden on court personnel. In fact, in terms of preparatory proceedings, the selection of national judges or jurors, and trial evidence investigation procedures, the design of the lay judge and jury systems is identical. The sole difference between the two lies in the role of the judge—that is, whether the judge engages in discussions with the accused regarding the case facts, as repeatedly explained by the Alliance. Therefore, the Judicial Yuan's claim that parallel implementation imposes an excessively heavy burden on the courts is unfounded, because the courts only need to learn the procedures of one new system to grasp the majority of the contents of both systems.

Addressing the Judicial Yuan's criticism that parallel implementation uses the human rights of the accused as an experiment, Chairman Lin supplemented that, beyond the response in yesterday's (July 9) press release, the Judicial Yuan had already reached a consensus with civil society during past consultations and drafted provisions, while civil society also proposed a compromise version designating high-profile or suspicious cases—such as corruption and vote-buying—as cases to invest jury resources into. Yet, the Judicial Yuan now denies all of this, attacking the proposal with rhetoric such as people's 'lives, liberty, and property falling into a human rights crisis' and a 'lack of academic foundation.' However, the Judicial Yuan's use of sentencing severity as a benchmark also lacks academic foundation. The Alliance maintains that the key lies in granting citizens the right to choose. Meanwhile, the Judicial Yuan has cited numerous technical issues—such as 'how to decide when citizens do not know how to choose,' 'the application of different trial systems to attempted versus completed murder,' and 'the application of different trial systems to co-defendants in multi-offender cases'—as reasons to oppose parallel implementation. Yet, technical issues are not what citizens care about, and moreover, the Judicial Yuan's concerns can easily be resolved through legislative technique.

Chairman Lin also provided further in-depth explanation regarding judgments under the jury system. The Judicial Yuan stubbornly adheres to the lengthy argumentation of traditional judgments, while ignoring the reality that citizens cannot understand judgments and that judges spend most of their time writing judgments, leading to inattentiveness during hearings. The simplified judgments of the jury system and refocusing deliberations on the trial proceedings can resolve these issues. The Judicial Yuan's objection that there are no judgments is not only erroneous, but also disregards the core judicial reform issues that citizens care about, while abandoning a system capable of solving these problems.

Responding to the Judicial Yuan's press release concluding with criticism that a hung jury (a situation where the jury fails to reach a verdict) wastes judicial resources, Chairman Lin first pointed out that hung juries are a minority, accounting for only 2% to 5%. If hung juries are to be reduced through voting designs—such as abandoning the requirement for unanimity and adopting a 10-to-2 majority verdict—these are merely technical matters. Moreover, drawing on his experience as a lawyer rescuing Hsuch Tze-chiang (徐自強) in a wrongful conviction case that dragged on until the ninth retrial before being finalized, Lin pointed out that the professional-judge-dominated system also suffers from the problem of wasting judicial resources.

Professor Li Li-chung (李禮仲) pointed out five major reasons supporting the jury system: democratic justice, friendly justice, economical justice, strong-nation justice, and honorable justice.

First, democratic justice: The lay judge system's '3 (professional judges) + 6 (national judges)' is merely a pseudo-reform, which in substance is still guided by judges. In contrast, the jury system's '1 (professional judge) + 9 (jurors)' allows citizens to independently construct evidence while judges merely guide procedures, which truly constitutes a people-centric justice.

Second, friendly justice: Courts belong to the people, not to judges, and certainly not to political parties. As Chairman Lin mentioned earlier, the plain-language simplification of judgments under the jury system and the retreat of judicial authority can create a friendly justice.

Third, economical justice: Juries do not necessarily consume excessive judicial resources; rather, they can reduce the time costs for parties involved. This is because preparatory proceedings, evidence disclosure, and jury selection take place before the trial; the U.S. Federal Constitution mandates trial conclusion within eight months, and in practice, jury trials last only two to three days. The professor also shared his personal experience as a student in the U.S. regarding a parking ticket violation to illustrate that U.S. evidence requirements are rigorous—a traffic ticket was rescinded by the court because it omitted 'AM' or 'PM', yet this did not impede prompt trial conclusion.

Fourth, strong-nation justice: Democratic powerhouses such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada all adopt the jury system. Taiwan has democratized; to become a strong nation, it should likewise discard past authoritarian justice and choose the judicial systems of strong nations.

Fifth, honorable justice: Phenomena such as dinosaur judges, political judges, and rookie judges have led to low judicial credibility, making legal professionals hesitant to admit their own expertise. It is imperative to introduce the most democratic system to restore public trust in the judiciary. Taking the U.S. as an example, the public trust enjoyed by its legal system is closely linked to the grand jury system. Under this system, prosecutors must convince the grand jury to indict an accused, showing that aside from trials, the U.S. judiciary is extremely rigorous even at the indictment stage to avoid wrong accusations. Comprehensive reform cannot be hastily undertaken by individuals with only a superficial understanding of Anglo-American law; otherwise, the goal of honorable justice cannot be achieved. As Democratic Progressive Party caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) recently worried—that a single dissenting vote from a juror could prevent the conviction of defendants under the Anti-Infiltration Act—this demonstrates that those in power do not understand the rigorous regulations of the jury system and lack the competence to successfully drive reform.

Addressing the issue of judgments, Professor Li added that evidence requirements in Anglo-American law are extremely strict. If a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, the prosecution is prohibited from appealing, in which case a judgment is unnecessary. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, a judgment is naturally provided to the accused so that they may exercise their right of appeal.

Finally, Professor Li shared his aspirations for judicial reform: although he supports the jury system and there are many voices in the country supporting the lay judge system, this is currently a trial stage, and the public should at least be given the opportunity to choose and try—to choose the jury system backed by the aforementioned multiple reasons. This is a critical moment for judicial reform. As Sun Wukong once said, 'If I become a Buddha, there are no demons in the world; if I become a demon, what can heaven do to me?' He hopes that a democratic legal system can serve as the tightening headband on the government, safeguarding the rights of the people and ridding Taiwan of demons once and for all.

Attending Representatives

Lawyer Lin Yung-sung / Chairman, Judicial Reform Foundation (Convener)
Professor Li Li-chung / Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University of Business

Press Contacts

Judicial Reform Foundation / Director Hsiao Yi-min (蕭逸民)
Taiwan Association for Parliamentarian Jury / Deputy Secretary-General Lin Ping-ch'uan (林秉權)