Do Not Destroy Judicial Reform by Voting: The Younger Generation Stands Up – Sit-in Protest and Press Conference on the 21st Day of Including the Lay Assessor Bill in the Legislative Yuan's Extraordinary Session

The "Alliance for the Concurrent Trial of Lay Participation and Jury Systems," composed of civil society organizations such as the Judicial Reform Foundation and the Taiwan Association for Yangi Jury, held a press conference titled "Do Not Destroy Judicial Reform by Voting: The Younger Generation Stands Up" at 9:30 a.m. on July 19 at the main entrance of the Legislative Yuan. They invited student groups such as the Youth Democracy Association and the Students' Union of Taiwan to attend in support, and the Humane Education Foundation issued a written statement. They called on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to suspend the vote to pass the draft Citizens in Criminal Trials Act during the extraordinary session, and urged them to consult opinions from all sectors and seek social consensus.

Attorney Lin Yung-sung (林永頌) first explained the poll results released at yesterday's press conference: 64.2% of respondents lacked confidence in whether Taiwanese judges' trials conform to the principles of fairness and justice, and as many as 80.7% believed that the current system of independent judicial trials is in need of reform. These figures are quite close to official and private data. Attorney Lin noted that poll questions must not be misleading; the Alliance had explained the definitions of both systems in advance when asking the public whether they support the jury or lay participation system, and he questioned whether the DPP, which has consistently failed to publish its poll questions, might be leading respondents.

Attorney Lin pointed out that Professor Yu Ying-lung (游盈隆) asked the DPP in early July whether it could make its poll questions public, but the DPP has yet to respond and instead turned to question Professor Yu's poll. Yesterday, the DPP further attacked the Alliance's poll questions for using phrasing such as stating that Europe and the United States are advanced countries and that forcing the bill through would cause social antagonism. In response, Attorney Lin stated that it is an objective fact that Europe and the United States are advanced countries, and the question design was not intentionally formulated to create a correlation with agreeing to a jury system. Regarding the claim that forcing the bill through during an extraordinary session without social consensus would cause social antagonism, Attorney Lin noted that while three opposition parties clearly stated their acceptance of the concurrent trial of both systems, the DPP stubbornly insisted on lay participation and rejected the jury system, failing to reach a cross-party consensus. This is merely a statement of fact yet was attacked by the DPP, and he urged the DPP spokesperson to exercise restraint.

Attorney Lin also questioned the credibility of the government's polls, reiterating that poll questions must not be leading and must not contain any value judgments. However, the government's descriptions of the jury system contain obvious errors, such as claims that jury verdicts cannot be appealed and that there are no written judgments. These misinformation points have been repeatedly refuted by the Alliance and are simply rehashed old arguments. Lay participation also involves issues related to authoritarianism, but the Alliance did not ask the public whether they agree based on the premise of an authoritarian effect; if a poll were to target this issue, it should be asked independently. As for questions regarding the jury system's hung jury ("Hung Jury"), Attorney Lin explained that this occurs at a very low rate in the United States and serves to embody the spirit of the presumption of innocence so that people are not easily convicted. Moreover, this involves complex operational issues of the system that are difficult to present through a single question in a telephone interview. Polls should explain the key elements of both lay participation and jury systems before asking the public to make a choice.

The Judicial Yuan stated that it has held many mock trials and believes that publicity has not been insufficient. Attorney Lin pointed out, however, that the Judicial Yuan's mock trials are exclusively based on the lay participation system, which is insufficient for the public to truly understand the differences between lay participation and jury systems. The government should not draw conclusions from this to claim that the public does not support a jury system.

Attorney Lin then commented on a poll conducted by the Judicial Yuan through the Election Study Center at National Chengchi University in March 2018, pointing out that it was conducted only after the Judicial Yuan had already decided to promote the lay participation system, rendering the poll results useless as a basis for government policy promotion and reducing them merely to a tool for policy propaganda. The poll adopted both telephone and online interviews, but Attorney Lin argued that online demographics skew younger and are more highly educated, failing to reflect the overall situation in Taiwan. He further raised three core design issues:
First, "Will discussing and trying cases together with judges make citizens dare or dare not speak their own minds?" This prompt fails to clearly define what "discussion" entails. Under the lay participation system, lay judges and professional judges can jointly discuss whether a defendant is guilty; under the jury system, professional judges explain the law to the jurors. Such ambiguous phrasing is flawed.
Second, "Do you think judges will dominate the final judgment outcome, or will they help the public better understand the case facts to make a judgment?" However, these two explanations are not mutually exclusive and can both hold true simultaneously.
Third, "Should the judgment result be decided jointly by the participating citizens and judges, or should it be decided by the participating citizens alone?" This question fails to highlight the essential elements of the jury and lay participation systems, making its semantic expression unclear. The jury system also involves the participation of judges; the only difference is the mode of participation, where judges preside over the trial proceedings and sentencing.

From these three points, it can be seen that the Judicial Yuan conducted its poll without being able to effectively distinguish between the lay participation and jury systems, making it lacking in credibility. Yet the DPP government, not daring to make its own poll questions public, instead claimed that 70% to 80% of public opinion supports the lay judge system. In comparison, Attorney Lin believes that the Alliance's poll is relatively fair and objective.

Chen Yu-wei (陳佑維), Secretary-General of the Students' Union of Taiwan, stated that almost no one on university campuses in Taiwan knows the difference between lay participation and jury systems; almost no one knows that this issue is currently unfolding; and almost no one knows that the Legislative Yuan is forcing through the lay participation bill to begin trialing the lay judge system. Universities are actually a microcosm of society, especially for emerging social issues and political reform issues; the campus acts like a hotbed for society, allowing issues to ferment and spread. Speaking from the perspective of a current student at National Cheng Kung University, he pointed out that even for law students, understanding of this issue is insufficient, and people around them engage in almost no discussion. Under such circumstances, the Judicial Yuan's claim that it has achieved sufficient publicity and reached sufficient consensus is questionable.

Chen Yu-wei said that this will undoubtedly be a very important judicial reform, and decisions cannot simply be made by politicians in the Judicial Yuan or Legislative Yuan themselves without communicating with the masses. Judicial reform should not be so arrogant. The Students' Union of Taiwan calls on authorities: if judicial reform changes overnight in the absence of social consensus, public trust in the judiciary will become increasingly fragile. The purpose of judicial reform is to regain public confidence; if a single trial of lay participation is conducted without a control group, ultimately leading to undesirable outcomes, it will be yet another major blow to the judiciary. He once again called on the Legislative Yuan to legislate prudently, which is the long-term solution.

Chang Yu-meng (張育萌), Executive-General of the Youth Democracy Association, concurred with the views of the Secretary-General of the Students' Union of Taiwan. He noted that the lack of awareness regarding this issue is not limited to university campuses; most of the public also does not understand this issue well and does not know that the Legislative Yuan insists on passing the draft lay judge system bill in the near future.

Chang Yu-meng then condemned President Tsai for insisting on passing this draft bill—which has not garnered public consensus—during the extraordinary session. It is not that the ruling party has not heard the opinions of civil society, but rather that the arrogance of power makes them insist on passing their own version. He believes that encouraging young people to participate more in public affairs is currently a social consensus, and when President Tsai was inaugurated, she also actively proposed constitutional amendments to lower the voting age to 18. Yet the Judicial Yuan's draft bill sets the age for citizens to participate in trials at 23. Many opposition parties have proposed lowering the age of eligibility to 18, but the Judicial Yuan expressed concerns that if students see overly bloody cases, they might have nightmares when they go home. Legislator Chou Chun-mi (周春米) also expressed the view that if students are selected as lay judges, they would not know whether they should ask for leave from school. Are these issues truly problems that only students would face?

Chang Yu-meng believes that judicial reform is something all citizens eagerly look forward to, and it has been actively promoted since President Tsai was elected in 2016. However, four years have passed, and although the public thought about giving the Tsai administration another chance, the DPP has once again demonstrated its arrogance toward judicial reform following this inauguration, believing that only the system it endorses is viable. Having previously held judicial reform conferences, this time it refuses to communicate with civil society and the opposition parties, stubbornly insisting on passing the bill during the extraordinary session.

Chang Yu-meng concluded by presenting two demands on behalf of the Youth Democracy Association: First, passing the draft lay judge system bill so hastily during an extraordinary session is highly inappropriate; he hopes the DPP will think twice and halt this bill, which is unsuited for review in an extraordinary session. Second, he hopes the DPP caucus will value past commitments made to young people, to judicial reform, and to the people, re-engage in communication with the public, and win back the people's trust.

Attorney Lin also added the statement publicly issued by the Humane Education Foundation. The Foundation has long focused on educational work yet still finds itself insufficiently understanding of the system; if the system is rolled out under such circumstances, communication and advocacy must be further expanded.

Attorney Cheng Wen-lung (鄭文龍) additionally supplemented that the ruling party's attempt to re-promote lay participation during the extraordinary session constitutes political dishonesty, raising two questions in this regard: First, when President Tsai presided over the National Judicial Reform Conference in 2017, lay participation and jury systems were discussed. Because the number of supporters for each of the two systems was evenly split, the vote resulted in 7:7, and thus no resolution was made. If the DPP believed that lay participation was better, a resolution should have been made at that time. Now, for the Legislative Yuan led by the Tsai administration to force through lay participation amounts to President Tsai slapping her own face as chairperson, posing a major political problem.

Furthermore, the DPP party charter explicitly stipulates the jury system; it proposed the Jury Act in 2012, had 17 legislators co-sign support for a jury system in 2015, and expressed support for it again last year. Why did it suddenly change its stance this year without offering any explanation? Attorney Cheng urged the government not to violate trust and suddenly abandon a position it has defended for one or two decades. As student representatives stated, the operation of a new system requires an experimental group and a control group. Today, polls show that 83% of the public supports the concurrent trial of both systems; the government's actions not only violate scientific common sense, but also go against mainstream public opinion.

Whether it is the Judicial Yuan advocating for lay participation or the DPP "changing its stance," doubts regarding the jury system all stem from a lack of understanding of it. Using Tesla as an analogy, Attorney Cheng explained that the questions raised by the DPP about the jury system are akin to asking, "How many c.c. is a Tesla?" A Tesla is an electric vehicle, and it cannot be compared from the perspective of a traditional fuel-powered car.

In addition, Attorney Cheng believes that the Judicial Yuan's draft bill suffers from two major problems: First, under Article 25 of the draft, the selection of lay assessors is not transparent. Attorney Cheng noted that open trials have long been a global consensus, and secret selection of jurors is rare worldwide; if Taiwan's bill passes, it will become a laughingstock globally, and the trial system established by the government should keep pace with the times. Second, the government questions whether the public possesses sufficient legal literacy to competently fulfill the role of a trial participant. Attorney Cheng emphasized the importance of "professional division of labor." Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers possess legal expertise and lead the legal proceedings, while 12 or 9 jurors possess rich and diverse social experiences. In terms of establishing facts, their judgment is superior to that of 3 legal professionals, while judges remain responsible for sentencing. The concept of the division of labor in specialization has developed since the 18th century in The Wealth of Nations to maximize social benefits. Yet the lay participation system that the Judicial Yuan seeks to force through lacks this professional division of labor, leading to an authoritarian effect. Attorney Cheng expressed regret over this and called on legislators to humbly understand the system and respect the voices of civil society.

Attending Representatives

Attorney Lin Yung-sung / Chairperson (Convener), Judicial Reform Foundation
Attorney Cheng Wen-lung / Founding Chairperson (Convener), Taiwan Association for Yangi Jury
Chen Yu-wei / Secretary-General, Students' Union of Taiwan
Chang Yu-meng / Executive-General, Youth Democracy Association