Abstract
International human rights law does not demand lay participation in criminal trials. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law” but it does not dictate the composition of the tribunal. In recent years, Taiwan has tussled with the extent to which public access to observing trials should be transformed into direct public participation in the outcome of those trials. To date, however, the role that lay people will serve in the adjudication process remains contested. As Taiwan moves towards formulating a specific plan for lay participation, this chapter questions whether proponents of lay participation are expecting too much of the proposed reforms and encourages greater focus on how lay participation might impact the rights of the accused.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
UN Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 32, Article 14: right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para 18, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (23 Aug 2007).
- 2.
Lewis (2015).
- 3.
Chen (2016).
- 4.
Su (2017), p. 237.
- 5.
Wang (2002), p. 554.
- 6.
Republic of China (2012). Providing exception for open hearings in limited situations such as cases involving national safety or juveniles.
- 7.
Judicial Yuan (2016).
- 8.
See generally Chin (forthcoming).
- 9.
Gailiangshi Dangshiren Jinxing Zhuyi [改良式當事人進行主義] (Modified Adversarial System). http://www.judicial.gov.tw/work/work02/work02-01.asp. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 10.
Lewis (2009).
- 11.
Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7.
- 12.
Wu et al. (2017).
- 13.
Lou (2014), pp. 120–121.
- 14.
Huang and Lin (2013), p. 547.
- 15.
Su (2017), supra note 4, p. 239.
- 16.
Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7, at slide 9.
- 17.
Corrupt judges handed lengthy prison sentences. Taipei Times. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/07/01/2003507146. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 18.
Judges incur fury over pedophile sentencing. The China Post. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2010/08/26/270104/Judges-incur.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 19.
Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7.
- 20.
Id.
- 21.
Guomin Canyu Xingshi Shenpan Wangzhan [國民參與刑事審判網站] (Website for Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials). http://www.judicial.gov.tw/LayParticipation/intro08.asp. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 22.
Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7, at slide 41.
- 23.
Id.
- 24.
Huang and Lin (2014), supra note 14.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
Langbein (1981).
- 28.
Wu et al. (2017) supra note 12.
- 29.
- 30.
Tsai (2016).
- 31.
President Tsai launches judicial reform in Taiwan. Taiwan Today. http://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,6,10,15,18&post=3923. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 32.
Disi Fenzu: Canyu Touming Qinjin De Sifa [第四分組:參與透明親近的司法] (Fourth Sub-Committee: Participatory, Transparent, and Close Justice). https://justice.president.gov.tw/meetinggroup/4. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 33.
Judicial Reform Conference (2017).
- 34.
Sun (2016a).
- 35.
Lewis (2009), supra note 10.
- 36.
Huang and Lin (2013), supra note 14, at p. 562.
- 37.
Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7.
- 38.
Ryall (2016).
- 39.
Two men found guilty of intimidating lay judges in yakuza trial but walk free. The Japan Times. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/07/national/crime-legal/two-men-found-guilty-intimidating-lay-judges-yakuza-trial-walk-free/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 40.
However, research has demonstrated the prevalence of bias even among well-intentioned, highly qualified experts. Dror (2016).
- 41.
Republic of China (2016).
- 42.
Id., at para 233.
- 43.
ICCPR Review (2013).
- 44.
Id.
- 45.
Chen (2016), supra note 3.
- 46.
ICCPR Review (2013), supra note 43.
- 47.
ICCPR Review (2017).
- 48.
Relevant documents are available at the Ministry of Justice’s website. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/mp200.html. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 49.
ICCPR Review (2017), supra note 47, at para 7.
- 50.
Judicial Reform Conference (2017), supra note 33, at item 6.
- 51.
Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7, at slide 54.
- 52.
Hans (2007), pp. 307–308.
- 53.
Taiwan Innocence Project. http://twinnocenceproject.org/index.php. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
- 54.
Huang and Lin (2014), p. 367.
- 55.
Lee (2008).
- 56.
Lewis (2009), supra note 10.
- 57.
ICCPR Review (2013), supra note 43.
- 58.
Trial by jury not a cure-all for judiciary pains. The China Post. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2016/10/06/480277/Trial-by.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
References
Chen Y (2016) Socialization in isolation: Taiwan’s practices of human rights treaties as a non-UN member state and transnational educational networks. Unpublished J.S.D. dissertation, New York University School of Law, New York
Chin M (forthcoming) Adopting a lay participation system in Taiwan, in Judicial Reform in Taiwan: institutionalising democracy and the diffusion of law, Routledge (draft on file with the author)
Corrupt judges handed lengthy prison sentences. Taipei Times (1 July 2011). http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/07/01/2003507146. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Disi Fenzu: Canyu Touming Qinjin De Sifa [第四分組:參與透明親近的司法] (Fourth sub-committee: participatory, transparent, and close justice). https://justice.president.gov.tw/meetinggroup/4. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Dror I (2016) A hierarchy of expert performance. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 5(2):121–127
Fukarai F (2013) A step in the right direction for Japan’s judicial reform: impact of the justice system reform council recommendations on criminal justice and citizen participation in criminal, civil, and administrative litigation. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 36(2):517–567
Fukurai H (2007) The rebirth of Japan’s petit quasi-jury and grand jury systems: a cross-national analysis of legal consciousness and the lay participatory experience in Japan and the U.S. Cornell Int Law J 40(2):315–354
Gailiangshi Dangshiren Jinxing Zhuyi [改良式當事人進行主義] (Modified adversarial system). http://www.judicial.gov.tw/work/work02/work02-01.asp. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Guomin Canyu Xingshi Shenpan Wangzhan [國民參與刑事審判網站] (Website for citizen participation in criminal trials). http://www.judicial.gov.tw/LayParticipation/intro08.asp. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Hans V (2007) Introduction: citizens as legal decision makers: an international perspective. Cornell Int Law J 40(2):303–314
Huang K, Lin C (2013) Rescuing confidence in the judicial system: introducing lay participation in Taiwan. J Empirical Leg Stud 10(3):542–569
Huang K, Lin C (2014) Mock jury trials in Taiwan: paving the ground for introducing lay participation. Law Hum Behav 38:367–377
ICCPR Review (2013) Review of the initial reports of the government of Taiwan on the implementation of the international human rights covenants: concluding observations and recommendations adopted by the International Group of Independent Experts. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/HitCounter.asp?xItem=385451. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
ICCPR Review (2017) Review of the second reports of the government of Taiwan on the implementation of the international human rights covenants: concluding observations and recommendations adopted by the International Review Committee. https://www.ly.gov.tw/pages/ashx/File.ashx?FilePath-File/Attach/37315/File. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Judges incur fury over pedophile sentencing. The China Post (26 Aug 2010). http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2010/08/26/270104/Judges-incur.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Judicial Reform Conference (2017) Sifa Gaige Guoshihuiyi Fenzu Jueyi Guina Shuoming (12 Daxiang Zhongdian Yiti) [司法改革國是會議分組決議歸納說明[12 大項重點議題]] (National Affairs Conference on Judicial Reform: summary of Sub-Committee Resolutions [12 Important Main Topics]). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6gni5Xwp9QwVW9JRFU3Vk12Qzg/view. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Judicial Yuan (2016) Introducing lay participation in Taiwan: focusing on lay participation in moot courts. http://social.judicial.gov.tw/LayJudge.Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Kim R (2015) A benchmark in Asian judicial reform: the new Korean jury system. Suffolk Transnational Law Rev 38(2):281–324
Kwon S (2016) Toward democracy in criminal procedure: the significance & limitation of citizen participation in criminal trials in an attempt to accomplish democracy in criminal justice in Korea. North Ill Univ Law Rev 37(1):101–125
Langbein J (1981) Mixed court and jury court: could the continental alternative fill the American need? Am Bar Found Res J 1981(1):195–219.
Lee J (2010) Korean jury trial: has the new system brought about changes? Asian-Pacific Law Policy J 12(1):58–71
Lee S (2008) South Korea struggles to incorporate a young jury system (7 July 2008). The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/asia/07iht-jury.2.14299454.html. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Lewis M (2009) Taiwan’s new adversarial system and the overlooked challenge of efficiency-driven reforms. Va J Int Law 49(3):651–726
Lewis M (2015) Constitutions across the strait. In: Chen T, Chen D (eds) International engagement in China’s human rights. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 134–156
Lou Y (2014) Establishing a suitable lay participation system for the Taiwanese criminal justice system. Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington
Pan J (2017) Campaigners advocating jury trial system protest at presidential office. Taipei Times (25 Feb 2017). http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2017/02/25/2003665660. Assessed 5 Oct 2017
Plogstedt A (2013) Citizen judges in Japan: a report card for the initial three years. Indiana Int Comp Law Rev 23(3):371–428
President Tsai launches judicial reform in Taiwan. Taiwan Today (12 July 2016). http://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,6,10,15,18&post=3923. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Republic of China (2012) Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: initial report submitted under Article 40 of the covenant. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/HitCounter.asp?xItem=385452&ixCuAttach=119792. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Republic of China (2016) Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: second report submitted under Article 40 of the covenant. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/HitCounter.asp?xItem=453796. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Ryall J (2016) Japanese opting out of serving as lay judges. Deutsche Welle (4 June 2016). http://www.dw.com/en/japanese-opting-out-of-serving-as-lay-judges/a-19328332. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Su K (2017) Criminal court reform in Taiwan: a case of fragmented reform in a not-fragmented court system. Wash Int Law J 27(1):203–240
Sun H (2016a) Society, system not equipped for jury trials: experts. The China Post (30 Sept 2016). http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2016/09/30/479802/Society-system.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Sun H (2016b) Judicial Yuan nominee urged to support fully jury system. China Post. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2016/10/13/480962/Judicial-Yuan.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Taiwan Innocence Project. http://twinnocenceproject.org/index.php. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Trial by jury not a cure-all for judiciary pains. The China Post (5 Oct 2016). http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2016/10/06/480277/Trial-by.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Tsai I (2016), Tsai Ing-wen Zongtong Jiuzhi Yanshuo Zhong Ying Wen Quanwen [蔡英文總統就職演說中英文全文] (Inaugural address, complete Chinese and English text). http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201605205012-1.aspx. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Two men found guilty of intimidating lay judges in yakuza trial but walk free. The Japan Times (7 Jan 2017). http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/07/national/crime-legal/two-men-found-guilty-intimidating-lay-judges-yakuza-trial-walk-free/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
UN Human Rights Committee (2007). General Comment no. 32, Article 14: right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (23 Aug 2007)
Wang T (2002) The legal development of Taiwan in the 20th century: toward a liberal and democratic country. Pac Rim Law Policy J 11(3):531–559
Wu Z, Chen W, Xiang C et al. (2017) “Zhaohui Minzhong Xinlai”: Minjian Sigaihui Tui Peishenzhi [「找回民眾信賴」民間司改會推陪審制] (Restore the trust of the people: judicial reform foundation promotes jury system). Liberty Times Net (26 Mar 2017). http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/paper/1089026. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lewis, M.K. (2019). Who Shall Judge? Taiwan’s Exploration of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials. In: Cohen, J., Alford, W., Lo, Cf. (eds) Taiwan and International Human Rights. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0349-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0350-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)