Quasi-juries would be good first step in judicial reform

The Judicial Yuan will begin drafting a bill on this policy. If both the Cabinet and the Legislature approve the bill, a three-year trial program of the system will be conducted in Chiayi District Court and Shilin District Court.

Under the proposed bill, citizens aged 23 or older and with at least a high school education would be chosen by lottery to sit on five-member panels alongside three judges for the trials. Panelists will deliberate the facts and provide their views to the judges. They can also question defendants or witnesses when allowed by the judges.

The panelists, however, will not participate in the ruling process. The right to determine the final ruling on the case will reside with the judges, who will have to specify the reason for not adopting the jurors' view when they rule in opposition to them.

If passed, the bill will no doubt mark a milestone in Taiwan's judicial reforms by opening courtrooms to the public. It also comes at a time when public confidence in the judicial system has been damaged by a string of corruption charges against judges and prosecutors as well as by a series of controversial sexual assault case rulings labeled by many as nonsensical and detached from reality.

According to the Central News Agency, the Judicial Yuan began mulling the possibility of letting citizens perform jury duties earlier this year, in part to win the public's trust in the judicial system. It held meetings with professors from Germany, Japan and Korea, who shared their countries' experiences in adopting the quasi-jury systems.

Nevertheless, the lack of open consultation and the fact that Taiwan would come short of adapting the “full” jury system similar to the UK and the U.S., allowing the jurors the right to rule and to cast deciding votes, has led to criticism from legal experts. Some call the reform nothing but “window dressing.” The so-called jurors, some critics suggested, are nothing more than a dignified audience with better seats in the courtroom. The China Times quoted an unnamed legal expert as saying that the jurors will not make much of a difference since lawyers will still focus on convincing the judge, since that's where the true power is.

There are reasons to be optimistic. While the jurors have no power to cast deciding votes, their mere presence in the courtroom and their ability to question defendants and witnesses will impact the legal process. The fact that judges are required to explain their rulings when they are in opposition to the jurors' opinions will create more transparent courts. The proposed bill is a prudent first step away from the old court system.

However, this is not to say the proposal is perfect. While first public responses focused on the jurors' rights, the more important question is how the current legal system will evolve to accommodate these jurors. For example, the bill should specifically demand that judges give an explanation of their rulings in layman's terms.

The bill should also specify whether chosen candidates are required to attend. The bill should make it clear that panel seats are rights as well as responsibilities.

More importantly, in its final form, the jury system should not be limited only to major trials. If the aim of the reform is to create a more open court and to train responsible judges, there is no reason why the juror system should stop at death or life sentence trials and leave all the other cases alone. Those cases may attract less media coverage, but comprise the majority of the judges' workloads.

Subscribe to The China Post and save 25%. Click here

PrintEmail

Write a Comment

Terms

Enter your comments - 3000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos
 Respond to this email