The Twelve is a Belgian courtroom drama released on Netflix last year. Its central character, Frie, is accused of murdering her daughter and, sixteen years earlier, her best friend.

Each episode is named after a witness, and roughly thirty percent of the running time is devoted to courtroom proceedings. Viewers see jury selection, police testimony, the defendant's account, and questions from prosecutors and judges. We also watch the jurors move from knowing virtually nothing about the case to developing their own views through the trial and, ultimately, deliberating on a verdict.

The remaining seventy percent follows the jurors' distractions and internal conflicts as they try to balance participation in the trial with their own lives. The series highlights how people who judge others inevitably bring their own experiences and values into the evaluations they make.

The Twelve gives its jurors distinct and complicated lives: a relative of a victim of serious violent crime, a survivor of domestic violence, a divorced middle-aged man, an elderly bachelor, a man desperate enough to sell trial information to reporters, a wealthy heiress, a small construction-business owner, and a wage earner who lost her job because of her husband's sabotage. People from very different walks of life enter the courtroom and take seats in judgment.

Taiwan's Citizen Judges Act will officially take effect on January 1, 2023. The problems these jurors encounter may well become problems we face in the future. How does someone become a citizen judge? Watching the series naturally makes one curious, so we have collected a few observations to share.

The discussion below contains some spoilers, so if you plan to watch the series, we recommend finishing it first.

Jury foreperson Holly once witnessed her parents being murdered at home, and the perpetrator received what she regarded as a lenient sentence. When this history comes to light, some people call for her removal, but the judge concludes that her past does not prevent her from serving fairly and allows her to remain on the jury.

Q: Who is ineligible to serve as a citizen judge? Can a family member of a victim in another case serve?

Eligibility and disqualification are governed by Articles 12 through 15 of the Citizen Judges Act. As a general rule, a person who is at least 23 years old, is a citizen of the Republic of China, and has continuously resided within the court's territorial jurisdiction for at least four months may serve as a citizen judge.

Certain people are excluded because of their status-for example, the President or Vice President, prosecutors, and attorneys-as are persons connected with the case, the defendant, or the victim. A person who cannot adequately express themselves, has a condition that prevents competent participation, or is shown by concrete facts to be unable to perform the role impartially may also be disqualified.

A relative of a victim in an unrelated case may, in principle, still serve if none of those statutory grounds for exclusion applies.

Juror Delphine works and is raising three children. Because jury service prevents her from picking up her children from school, she and her husband fall into increasingly serious conflict and eventually divorce.

Q: Can difficulty finding childcare, or the need to keep a small business open to make a living, justify declining to serve as a citizen judge?

Article 16 of the Citizen Judges Act provides several grounds for declining service. A person may decline where major needs in daily life, work, or family make performance of citizen-judge duties manifestly difficult. In other words, a person whose service would cause a serious impact on everyday life, employment, or family responsibilities may have a statutory right to decline.

Because of personal debt, juror Noel sells information about the trial to the media.

Q: May a citizen judge speak to the media about the case? What are the consequences?

Article 35, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the
Citizen Judges Act provides that the court shall remove a citizen judge or alternate citizen judge, on its own initiative or upon a written motion by a party, defense counsel, or assistant, where the person "engages in conduct harmful to public confidence in judicial impartiality or discloses a matter that must remain confidential, such that continued service is inappropriate."
Article 97, Subparagraph 1 further provides that a person who currently serves or formerly served as a citizen judge or alternate citizen judge and, without justifiable reason, discloses the secrecy of deliberations may be punished by imprisonment for up to one year, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of up to NT$100,000.

Accordingly, unjustified disclosure of confidential matters can result not only in removal from service but also, depending on the circumstances, criminal punishment. Citizen judges should therefore avoid discussing matters under trial with outsiders such as the media.

Juror Joeri questions whether he is fit to judge another person for murder because he has himself illegally employed migrant workers and may have incurred criminal liability for homicide by omission.

Q: Is Joeri's self-doubt justified?

Under Taiwan's Citizen Judges Act, the circumstances portrayed in the series could potentially lead to his removal under Article 35, though the example is an extreme one.

More generally, even people who have committed no crime may wonder whether they are qualified to judge others. But citizen judges and alternate citizen judges are selected under statutory procedures designed to identify people capable of participating in trial and final deliberations. Nor does a single person decide guilt alone: the decision is reached after discussion among three professional judges and six citizen judges. Everyone is imperfect. The fact that someone seriously asks whether they are fit to judge another person may itself reflect the humility that makes careful participation possible.

Juror Arnold is an elderly bachelor who initially hopes to pursue a romantic relationship with fellow juror Veerle, but his attitude toward her changes sharply when he learns that she is a lesbian.

Q: Can someone who holds prejudices against particular groups or issues serve as a citizen judge?

The Act does not categorically exclude every person who holds some prejudice. Its general principles, however, require citizen judges to perform their duties fairly and honestly, evaluate the evidence presented in court with an open mind, and avoid prejudice, discrimination, and outside public pressure. If the court or a party establishes circumstances creating a risk that citizen participation cannot be fair, the person should not be selected as a citizen judge.

Jurors Joeri and Holly develop an intimate relationship during the trial.

Q: May citizen judges have personal relationships with one another?

The Citizen Judges Act does not expressly regulate private relationships among citizen judges. Article 41 does, however, provide:
"No person shall, with intent to influence a trial, contact or communicate in any manner with a citizen judge, alternate citizen judge, or candidate citizen judge.
No person shall seek to obtain from a current or former citizen judge, alternate citizen judge, or candidate citizen judge any matter that must be kept confidential by law."

Near the end of the series, deliberations produce a "hesitant majority": only seven of the twelve jurors favor conviction. The professional judges, who had previously stayed out of the jurors' discussion and voting, then join the decision-making process.

Q: Does Taiwan also use majority voting? How does final deliberation work, and what role do the professional judges play?

In Taiwan, professional judges and citizen judges deliberate together on factual findings, application of law, and sentencing. The final vote is taken by nine people: three professional judges and six citizen judges. A guilty verdict requires at least two-thirds of the panel-six votes-and those six must include at least one professional judge. Thus, even if all six citizen judges vote to convict, the defendant is acquitted unless at least one professional judge also votes guilty.

The series includes a debate between two lawyers about whether a case is better tried by professional judges or by a jury.

Q: Under Taiwan's system, can a defendant choose between trial by professional judges and trial with citizen judges?

Taiwan does not generally leave that choice to counsel or the defendant. Subject to statutory exclusions-including juvenile cases, drug cases, and cases whose first instance is before a high court-the citizen-judge system applies to offenses prosecuted by a public prosecutor that carry a minimum statutory sentence of at least ten years' imprisonment or to intentional offenses resulting in death. The court may, however, exclude a qualifying case in specified circumstances, such as where citizen judges would have difficulty reaching a fair judgment, where there is a risk to citizen judges or their relatives, where the case is exceptionally complex or specialized, or where the court otherwise finds citizen participation inappropriate. Counsel may apply for exclusion, but the court makes the final decision.

The Twelve mirrors real life: every juror brings a personal history, and experiences from family, work, and relationships shape the judgments they make. Once Taiwan's citizen-judge system takes effect, any of us may be called to participate. Some people may worry that they lack legal training and yet must help determine another person's guilt; others may fear disagreeing with the group or doubt their own judgment.

But when we sit together in judgment, all of us are equally imperfect.

Joeri: Is someone like me qualified to judge other people?
Holly: Maybe that is exactly why there need to be twelve of us.

 

Further Reading

• Understanding Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials
• Lecture Sidelights | The Public Sphere in Trials-How Citizen Judges and the Public "Talk About" Justice Through the Lens of Constitutional Theory