Taiwan Prosecutors & Police         Taiwan judicial system reviews

                                        this site's world No. 1 in  2020,  2017~19,  2016 20152014, 2013 2010~12       Top rankings since 1998   

  home  brief  Taiwan TW  FB  tour  personality  food  medical  restaurants  night markets  buffet  women  speech  massage  prostitution  watching  judiciary  police  corruption  foreign labor  illegal migrants prosecutors  soft power  death penalty  happiness  housing  avia  image  creativity  human rights  US cartoons  US Design  intl Human rights  judicial persecution  repression&oppression  bully  univ  military(Chn-Taiwan war)  fraud  drugs  democracy     

 

 

comment Taiwan judicial system

Int'l & local Institutions

reviews & comments

USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 3-11-2020  Some political commentators and academics,  publicly questioned the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high profile, politically sensitive cases. Judicial reform advocates pressed for greater public accountability, reforms of the personnel system, and other procedural improvements
USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 3-13-2019  " justice ministry was insufficiently independent and conducted politically motivated investigations of politicians. "
<Liberty Times, Taiwan > 7-1-2020

https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1383385

 ( Avoid judicial monsters )  :  The main reason that the public do not trust the justice is lacking of external supervision (外部監督力量) and hence quite many controversial legal judgments were out there
<United Daily 聯合報>10-31-2020, https://udn.com/news/story/7321/4977543   Taiwan's judiciary spends lots of money on advertising themselves, but, the truth us Taiwan's justice always made a detour whenever encountering the power and the rich people. (司法砸錢宣傳 遇權貴卻轉彎)   The Supreme Court (最高法院大法庭) has many cases to solve, but no one wants to touch sensitive issues.
<United Daily 聯合報>7-14-2020,
https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4699302
Taiwan's president has never talked about anti-corruption, in recent years, the prosecutors and investigation gov. have not solved any big corruption cases, unlike lots of crack-downs in old days, instead, they focus on New National Security cases.  No wonder Taiwan president insists abolishing Special Investigation Division (SPD) .
<China Times 中時>  5-27-2020
https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200527000524-260118
The public trust on Taiwan's prosecutors was suffered severe injuries from the Minister's "guides" and "leads"  (部長下指導棋重傷檢察公信力)   
<United Daily 聯合報>5-16-2020
https://udn.com/news/story/121092/4567513
 The ruling party DPP has been more "authoritarian" than the way "authoritarian" government in old days was, no wonder the first thing the public have not satisfied with is the judicial reform.  Many question the judicial system was reduced to be the government's tool to strengthen monitoring the public, and many worries, their political opponents   (過去四年許多作為卻比過去威權更威權,立法、執法上不斷加強對人民的監控司法不斷被質疑淪為掌權者工具 司法改革卻是人民最不滿意的重中之重 )
<Liberty Times 自由時報> 7-1-2020

https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1383386

劍青檢改:Taiwan's Control Yuan was reduced to political "hit-man". 
<United Daily 聯合報 5-4-2020
https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4539908
Even law circle people are not satisfied with Taiwan's judicial reform 
<United Daily 聯合報> 11-8-2019
https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4173205
scandals in judicial circle again and again
<United Daily 聯合報 5-20-2019
  How long can Taiwan judiciary stand being lynched and tortured ? ( 司法還能忍受多久的凌遲?)   The Control Yuan (監察院) and the Prime Ministry (行政院) repeatedly have taken judiciary as sacrifice-offering  (司法當祭品)
<Liberty Times 自由時報> 5-11-2020
https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1287753
Taiwan's prosecutors should not be haughty, arrogant and condescending to make themselves "superior or powerful".  Enforcement officers should have empathy in mind and being humble.
<The Apple Daily>,  Nov. 2, 2020, editorial : (tw.appledaily.com/headline/20201101/NI6TYHSBLVADXO37NO3KMBAS2E/)   Taiwan's judicial system keeps treating the power and the rich with different standard, which crashes the public's trust on Taiwan's judiciary. (頻頻打擊司法公信力的「權貴減罪公式」一再上演)
United Daily 8-20-2020, editorial
https://udn.com/news/story/7338/4818831?from=udn-catehotnews_ch2
The Grand Justice of Taiwan has made itself to be the ruling party's "affiliate organization". 
 United Daily 1-8-2020, editorial: The ruling party has been good at collectively dividing the spoils ... the judicial system and investigation gov. have been obsequious and dared not to investigate the power and the richness (brief).
The Apple Daily,  9-13-2020, editorial The dark networks those wealthy businessmen created can make the administration, the parliament, the Control Yuan and the judicial system to take care of the 'missions' they gave, e.g., the over-the-counter (OTC) stock and Interest Arbitrage Transaction are good tools to control the officials.  Taiwan's judicial reform has not achieved the goal. https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20200912/XRWWTEZPLBGARBFFHQVXMYCH2Q/'; https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/20200912/NAQP67HBRRAP5LZ3ZW4AFWTAEQ/  Taiwan judicial reform has not reached planned performance; Taiwanese are not willing to wait any longer for a trusty justice.
The Apple Daily,  5-10-2020, editorial Some survey shows near 80% Taiwanese do not trust justice, even Judicial Yuan's survey showed 60+ % Taiwanese do not trust justice.  
 
Liberty Times, 4-30-2020: The crux of Taiwan legal system's problem is its party-state system.  Judicial reform just failed because the judicial govt. rejected jury system and dual system (jury system -assessor system), now the structure remains and the judges still hold the power of judgment.
CTS TV news,7-10-2019 National Chung Cheng university's survey shows that 80.9% Taiwanese don't trust the judges, only 32.3% nationals are satisfied with prosecutors.
The Apple Daily,  5-10-2020, editorial  Some survey shows near 80% Taiwanese do not trust justice, even Judicial Yuan's survey showed 50+ % Taiwanese do not trust the judges.
The Apple Daily,  5-8-2020 The practice and process of Taiwan's judicial reform is at least 10-20 years behind Japan's or Korea's. (林裕順/警察大學刑事系教授)
United Daily,  5-10-2020, editorial  Grand justice of supreme court ignored Pan-Green Coalition's  (黨產會,中選會、促轉會,甚至內政部和其他中央政府機關) violation of the law, such as selective enforcement trespassing of private goods,  auditing non-governmental organization even beyond the legal empowered bottom line ...
<The Apple Daily 蘋果日報> 3-14-2019
https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20190314/
4MAXLUAS3QNDAUXMGWOKPXOT2U/
(莊佳瑋)
The number of Prosecutors' unsolved cases increased a lot. 
<Liberty Times> headline、3-16-2019  Taiwan prime minister is not satisfied with judicial reform
<United Daily 聯合報> 2-26-2019 National Chung Chen university survey (中正大學民調): more than 80% Taiwanese are not satisfied with judicial reform, the public trust on the judges low down to about 20%
<United Daily 聯合報> 蔡政府近來弊案頻仍但仗立委、政務官或檢調徇私護短、掩蓋戕害社會正義、助長貪腐(udn.com/news/story/11321/4071079)
台北市市長柯文哲 ( United Daily 聯合報 United Daily 2-27-2018 聯合筆記) "監獄是關沒有辦法的人"
 民視(FTV), 7-26-2018 法官信任度不到 16%。

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Taiwan presidents majored in LAW should be ashamed of the image of Taiwan judicial systems

 

 

        

pic.: The sites-group was ranked No.1 "Taiwan's prosecutors" on Baidu of China, 11-11-2020
 

pic.: The sites-group was ranked No.1 "Taiwan's prosecutors" on Bing, 11-11-2020

 

pic.: The sites-group was ranked No.1 "comment Taiwan prosecutors" on Google, 1-26-2020

 

 

Case study - public insult & criminal intimidation

 

 

 


pic.: Taipei Prosecutor Office document to close the case without conducting further investigations
  For years, the suspects splashed lots of dirt and oil at front of my door (some dirt on my door) , but
Taipei prosecutor office twice closed the case (簽結) without conducting investigations to catch the suspects.
In contrast, Hong Kong police seemed to be more enthusiastic and active on this sort of cases to find out the truth.

 

Questions :

 

WHAT did prosecutor and police say ?

 the complainant's view

1. The police station spoke to the victim (complainant) reporting the case that the chief or the residents' committee for our building should be the right one to bring the law-suit to the court because the dirt and oil were splashed mainly to the corridor, a property of the building, not of mine.    Obviously, those police have not correct legal knowledge, because the suspect has been public-insulting against the particular resident.   If someone spits ptysis at front of you and the mouth water down on the street in Taipei , only the Taipei city hall owning the ground at front of you is entitled to bring a suit for being insulted ?
2. Taipei prosecutor office refused to conduct any investigation to arrest the suspects and jumped to an end.

 

It's very questionable to close the case without opening a court session to review the proofs.
3.  The victim brought a suit again, but the prosecutor office and police station said they can't catch the suspect(s).  Recently, there're many similar cases in Hong Kong, their police considered those cases seriously, and conducted investigations very soon, even some victims chose low-profile - refusing to bring a suit to the courthouse, besides, those HK cases were reported by media in HK, US, Canada etc.
The Taiwanese victim told prosecutor that the case suppose is politics-related too, and suppose will catch a "chain gang" with, probably, some top politicians. But it seemed to be a failure in here.  

pic.:  Recently, there're many similar cases in Hong Kong, their police considered those cases seriously, and did investigations soon even some victims chose low-profile - didn't bring a suit to the courthouse.  The picture above is one case among them being reported by TV media. 
 
4.  After the complainant brought a suit again, Taipei prosecutor opened a court session, and asked victim some questions below:
    (1) The case was already closed in last time, why did you suit it again
?
    (2) Why are splashing dirt to your house and damaging your house's wall a crime of  public insult and
criminal intimidation ?
    (3) Who are the suspects ?

    (4) Your monitor camera got some evidences ?

the complainant's answers
 (1) If it is not within reason, there will be no court session today.
 (2)
Just like the suspects splash dirt and oil to you and cut prosecutor's clothes, these  certainly are crimes.
 (3)
I do not run detective business, how can I solve the case ? not to mention this most likely is political case.

 (4) No ( but the prosecutor and police should be easy to know the monitor camera is nothing but an off-line scarecrow ! )

 
5.  Taipei prosecutor office again close the case, because:
    (1) There's no evidence showing the janitor and  
Executive Secretary or Director General splashed dirt.
    (2) The behaviour (act) being accused is
nothing to do with crime.
 (1) Compared with Hong Kong police, Taiwan prosecutor and police seemed to be incapable and less enthusiastic to find out the truth
 (2)
The janitor and Executive Secretary or Director General are obligated to actively clean the corridor, because that's why they got salary for, intentionally ignoring what happened (ps: Sept 2019 ~ Sept 2020) certainly is a crime of omission, and most likely they are the prime suspects or collusion accomplices, co-conspirators, or hired thugs..  Lasting for so many months make them the criminal liability of recidivists, a even more serious crime.  For legal details pls. read as below:

  Brief of the Criminal Complaint document


According to Taiwan's courts' decisions in recent years, the scope of crime of omission is not limited to serious crimes such as crime of intentional homicide, blood guilt and offenses of causing bodily harm.  For example, 
◆  "A" wrote something illegal on chalkboard to public insult "C", and then "B" having the duty to clean the board did not wipe it out for a month  ...

◆  "A" posted bad words on the net to public insult "C", and then "B" ( platform manager ) put off to delete those defamation words ...
◆ 
A guest star did public insult against another one nearby, but the TV show host did not stop the guest ...

 

The courthouses have never judged those public insults as legal behaviors.

 

A legal precedent (31年度上字第2324) of the Supreme Court : If the perpetrator doing something in some specific situation as expected, hence causing something bad not to happen, the perpetrator's "not acting so" is Elements of Criminal Law.  (倘「行為人為期待應為之特定行為,則構成要件該當之結果即不致於發生」,則行為人之不作為,即與構成要件)
 

 The complainant's DVD shows it is easy to clean the dirt, probably only take 3 minutes to wipe all out.  The DVD also shows the complainant reminded the janitor and Executive Secretary of cleaning the floor for more than one time, but nothing has changed. Both of them have the duty to do it, but intentionally ignored it, therefore it is causation

 

 

DVD:<02112020總幹事>  02-11-2020
the complainant Chief ?
the accused Oh ~ this is Executive Secretary
the complainant the floor at front of my room No. 1XX7 has lots of dirt, which have not been cleaned at all since last year
the accused 1XX7 ~
the complainant Yes
the accused OK
the complainant OK


DVD:<01162020清潔員>  01-16-2020
the complainant  lots of dirt occupied all floor at front of my door, cannot clean it ?
the accused I can't do it
the complainant can not ? it's been a long long time ~ up to 5 months
the accused no !!

 

 

   
  刑事告訴狀 摘要 (in Chinese)

 

 

(1) 謹呈附件(DVD)內容為民國108年9月後至今109年4月自宅門前,為不知名份子潑灑髒污,經告訴人多次清潔門口小區塊,其餘部分如故甚至更糟,潑灑油污物恐致訪客與住戶之中老年人或小孩摔跌,嫌犯涉預謀傷害等重罪

 

(2) 為被告涉嫌妨害名譽等罪,依法敬提刑事告訴狀事:

民國108年9月後至109年4月自宅門口約3*1公尺面積,為不知名份子潑灑髒污,大門也濺到少許,大廈清潔員例行日日拖地清潔,十餘層樓家家戶戶門前地板雪白,唯獨告訴人宅門迄今近一年依然髒污如故、部分可能是混了新灰塵甚至更糟,之前數年亦有類似情況,只是髒污較少僅門前潑小面積油牆角牆面變微黃,這些髒污恐致住戶與訪客尤其是中老年人或小孩摔跌,經與清潔員及總幹事溝通無效,清潔員疑涉故意公然侮辱(如總幹事包庇之則為共犯)恐嚇等罪。

一、香港近頻發生類似潑污或淋油案例,都獲得港警重視及嚴查,並為港台美加之中英文媒體及網路所報導,迅速被逮捕的台灣嫌犯同夥面臨violence,public insult, damage等刑罪起訴,也有的案件當事人低調不告媒體仍作報導警仍迅速處理。台灣警察大學公安教授在電視指責反送中港人來台也被潑漆,可見以此類手法,已不僅是俗話土話、而且是國際語言、明顯的惡意犯罪,意圖傳遞恐嚇侮辱訊息; 則本案豈該大事化小草草結案?

二、被告至少觸犯公然侮辱妨害名譽、暴力恐嚇等罪 台灣苗栗地方法院91易字564判決:稱侮辱者係指以輕蔑使人難堪之言語舉動或他法,對於該員為侮辱 而言臺北地方法院刑事判決103年度審易字第1660號明載刑法第309條第1項公然侮辱罪,係指對人詈罵、嘲笑、侮蔑,其方法並無限制,不問以文字、言詞、態度、舉動,只須以公然方式為之,而足使他人在精神上、心理上有感受難堪或不快之虞,足以減損特定人之聲譽、人格及社會評價即足(司法院院解字第3806號反面解釋參照) 。  恐嚇之方法以言詞、文字(如匿名信)、舉動為之,均無不可,其屬直接通知或間接通知均可,只須使被害人知悉為已足。 因地板油滑可導致老人摔跌應連同考量觸犯預謀傷害或殺人罪。

三、臺灣臺北地方法院刑事判決97年度易字第2354號,按刑法公然侮辱罪,所謂「公然」係指不特定多數人得以共見共聞之狀態,不以實際上果為多數人已共見共聞為必要;查實務判決與學說皆同做案場所為綜合商業大樓 無門禁管制,故符合「公然」定義  

四、經查法院近年裁判書,即便被告並非始作甬犯行者,仍屬不作為犯,不作為犯之範圍不限於傷害殺人等罪,從積極作為或消極不作為之方式進入他人住宅或建築物,到消極之不作為致使教學無效,都被判決不作為犯罪,未見法官裁決不作為犯與犯罪無關者,睽諸判決: A在黑板書寫侮辱文字,應該擦拭黑板的B卻故意拖延一月不擦拭; A在網路張貼侮辱文字,B(版主或管理者)拖延不刪除系爭文字; A面臨同學指摘時,不斷表達道歉,被上訴人B未給予上訴人適時協助之不作為;電視節目來賓妨害名譽,主持人不作為未作阻止,但該段內容刪除不播出; ...等等皆是

五、經查不作為犯之成立,以行為人在法律上具有積極的作為義務為前提,此作為義務雖不限於明文規定,然就法律之精神觀察,有此義務者始能令負犯罪責任,最高法院31年度上字第2324號著有判例若能有幾近確定之可能性認為:倘「行為人為期待應為之特定行為,則構成要件該當之結果即不致於發生」,則行為人之不作為,即與構成要件該當結果具有因果關係告訴人不只一次當面提醒負責清潔工作的被告清理髒污,皆答無法清理(詳DVD,1-16-2020),然經告訴人測試,以十多元小刷子幾秒就可清一塊髒污(詳DVD),不要3分鐘整片污地便可完全回復原狀,被告卻拖延近一年不做,其就算每日輕拂髒污歷經近年顏色也該稍淡才是(結果部分更黑)。在此情狀下,被告並非「不能為」,而係「不作為」告訴人於2-11-2020面告陳姓總幹事也無下文(如需錄音DVD開庭可提供)。被告工作是負責清潔走道牆面、總幹事負責監督管理,二人對法益具有監督保護之義務,豈有拿錢不做事之理!

 
 如前述潑污或淋油手法多年來已為電視新聞網路媒體 廣為報導流傳依日常生活經驗,被告也當知潑污含義應有能力對於客觀不法加以注意,卻仍進而決意不作為,構成不作為故意為共犯或主嫌

 

告訴人月繳管理費已十多萬元並無積欠。前述潑污淋油手法,屬公然侮辱恐嚇甚至蓄意傷害殺人罪,且數年來的破壞潑污持續進行中(比方門前牆腳的黃色髒污),被告工作是負責清潔走道牆面、總幹事負責監督管理,應有能力且有義務對於客觀不法加以注意,卻仍進而決意不作為,構成不作為故意,為共犯或主嫌。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

failure to act 不作为omission

 

 

quate      causation theory因果理論 adequate causation theoryplacing person in false light

defamation  名譽毀損、誹謗 注意義務 duty of care