Skip to main content

Who Shall Judge? Taiwan’s Exploration of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Taiwan and International Human Rights

Part of the book series: Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific ((ELIAP))

  • 1115 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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. 2.

    Lewis (2015).

  3. 3.

    Chen (2016).

  4. 4.

    Su (2017), p. 237.

  5. 5.

    Wang (2002), p. 554.

  6. 6.

    Republic of China (2012). Providing exception for open hearings in limited situations such as cases involving national safety or juveniles.

  7. 7.

    Judicial Yuan (2016).

  8. 8.

    See generally Chin (forthcoming).

  9. 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. 10.

    Lewis (2009).

  11. 11.

    Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7.

  12. 12.

    Wu et al. (2017).

  13. 13.

    Lou (2014), pp. 120–121.

  14. 14.

    Huang and Lin (2013), p. 547.

  15. 15.

    Su (2017), supra note 4, p. 239.

  16. 16.

    Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7, at slide 9.

  17. 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. 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. 19.

    Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7.

  20. 20.

    Id.

  21. 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. 22.

    Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7, at slide 41.

  23. 23.

    Id.

  24. 24.

    Huang and Lin (2014), supra note 14.

  25. 25.

    Kwon (2016); Kim (2015); Lee (2010).

  26. 26.

    Plogstedt (2013); Fukarai (2013); Fukurai (2007).

  27. 27.

    Langbein (1981).

  28. 28.

    Wu et al. (2017) supra note 12.

  29. 29.

    Pan (2017), Sun (2016b).

  30. 30.

    Tsai (2016).

  31. 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. 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. 33.

    Judicial Reform Conference (2017).

  34. 34.

    Sun (2016a).

  35. 35.

    Lewis (2009), supra note 10.

  36. 36.

    Huang and Lin (2013), supra note 14, at p. 562.

  37. 37.

    Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7.

  38. 38.

    Ryall (2016).

  39. 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. 40.

    However, research has demonstrated the prevalence of bias even among well-intentioned, highly qualified experts. Dror (2016).

  41. 41.

    Republic of China (2016).

  42. 42.

    Id., at para 233.

  43. 43.

    ICCPR Review (2013).

  44. 44.

    Id.

  45. 45.

    Chen (2016), supra note 3.

  46. 46.

    ICCPR Review (2013), supra note 43.

  47. 47.

    ICCPR Review (2017).

  48. 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. 49.

    ICCPR Review (2017), supra note 47, at para 7.

  50. 50.

    Judicial Reform Conference (2017), supra note 33, at item 6.

  51. 51.

    Judicial Yuan (2016), supra note 7, at slide 54.

  52. 52.

    Hans (2007), pp. 307–308.

  53. 53.

    Taiwan Innocence Project. http://twinnocenceproject.org/index.php. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.

  54. 54.

    Huang and Lin (2014), p. 367.

  55. 55.

    Lee (2008).

  56. 56.

    Lewis (2009), supra note 10.

  57. 57.

    ICCPR Review (2013), supra note 43.

  58. 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret K. Lewis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics