Taiwan judicial system, criticism                  this site's world No. 1 in  2017~18,  2016 2015 2014,  2013 2010~12                      
  home  brief  human rights  tour  personality  food  medical  restaurants  night market women  speech   erotic   watching   judiciary  police  corruption  foreign labor  prosecutors  soft power  death penalty  happiness  housing  avia  image  creativity

see Taiwan's Judiciary by int'l & local fair comments  

Int'l & local Institutions

critiques on Taiwan judicial systems

 
Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen (Apple Daily, Liberty Times etc ,11-30-2016; China Post, Dec. 5, 2016,  United Daily 2-27-2018) Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen pronounced a death penalty on Taiwan's justice, stated by Judges Association for President Tsai declared at Judicial Reform meeting (11-25-2016) that  no such injustice "The rich get off scot-free, the poor get the death sentence" (有錢判生,無錢判死) should be repeated, and blasted (5-20-2016) Taiwan justice earning no Taiwanese people trust.  
Taipei mayor Ko (United Daily 2-27-2018) Taiwan's jail and prison are good only for those have no connections at all. ("監獄是關沒有辦法的人")  
National Chung Cheng university's survey  (head-page of the Liberty Times, 2-23-2016)  Nearly 80% Taiwanese don't believe the impartiality of Taiwan's prosecutors, and public trust on Taiwan judiciary system keeps falling down in the past 8 years.  
USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 3-3-2017 (US state dept.) The justice ministry was insufficiently independent and conducted politically motivated investigations of politicians.  
 USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 6-26-2015, 2-27-2014 (US state dept.) Taiwan's judicial system suffered from some corruption.  Although authorities made efforts to eliminate corruption and diminish political influence in the judiciary, some residual problems remained...  the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high-profile and politically sensitive cases had been questioned.  
The United Daily,  06-18-2016,   Head page news Taiwan's prosecutors usually follow their boss's  (commanding officer) order to access and rule legal cases ... " He is bigger than I am, what can I say??" (檢察)  
The deputy dean of Law School, National Cheng-Chi University,The United Daily, 5-2015)  the standard of judgments on the same matters varies from person to person all the time is the reason why Taiwanese people do not believe Taiwan's judiciary.    
 The United Daily,  08-24-2016 ,  Editorial Taiwan's Judiciary and Legislative institutions never have a sense of shame on releasing major crimes of international fraud , and never have intention to stop this criminal actions by punishments...  
USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, April  13, 2016 (US state dept.) the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high-profile and politically sensitive cases have been publicly questioning  
The United Daily,  7-6-2016   Law professor Huang National Chung-Hsin University, Law School (中興大學)  
The Liberty Times, 2-28-2017 http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/ The most serious and terriblest judicial problem is its deep structure  judicial organs became state party's slave servant, it's incurable ... If we can't expel all judges and prosecutors, jury system is a better solution at the moment.  

 

pic.: This websites group was ranked No.1 on US Bing by "Taiwan judiciary" , 2-27-2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pic.: This websites group was ranked No.1 on
US Bing by "Taiwan prosecutors" , 2-27-2018

 

 

pic.: This websites group was ranked No.1 on Yahoo search by "Taiwan's prosecutors" , 2-27-2018

 

pic.: This websites group was ranked No.1 on US Google by "Taiwan prosecutors" , 2-27-2018

 

 

 

  Illustrations

 

 

 

justice dead

 

 

 Taiwanese prosecutors

 

Pic.:  Nearly 80% Taiwanese don't believe

 the judicial system

 

Pic.: Taiwanese prosecutors violate independence

 of the judiciary(ref to UDN, 6-18-2016, etc)

Why almost the whole country does not believe judicial system?   

  see Taiwanese prosecutors by some questionable cases

 

1.

 Prosecutor/judge WEN TZU-TE

 

Doctor of Law, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign College of Law,

Prosecutor - Investigate, indict, and litigate mainly cases of corruption, human

trafficking, sexual offenses, bribery, fraud, and domestic violence; Adjunct Lecturer - Specific Provisions of Code of Criminal Law

 

Brief, Wen's non-prosecutorial disposition concluded:

 

(1) The household caregiver pulled up a  disabled elderly (aged 92, sleepy, and dizzy by  6 medication each with warning-remark: falling prevention ) from bed in sleeping time, a very early morning, then led the old lady's  stick a step ahead, before that stick touched the floor,  the caregiver immediately turn back and run away, then the dizzy old lady fell down, Prosecutor Wen Tzu-Te thinks the Caregiver didn't want of reasonable care, it's neither a negligent conduct nor intentional harm/ willful act.   The  disabled elderly should be responsible for her falling down.

(2) Prosecutor Investigator in a Inquiry Session summon-questioned the caregiver why she disappeared a fine-quality porcelain-chinaware,  the caregiver answered "he hurt ...",  This guilty-pleading/acknowledgement proved what the caregiver did (larceny /theft, damage and even made old lady falling ) were designed to revenge a "hurt" (it's impossible to get any hurt  without evidence because lots of video camera in the house).  But  prosecutor Wen concluded it's unsubstantiated that the suspect did those by intention, and those are not criminal wrongdoings.   (details of this case pls see the web-page below)

 

tThe suspected caregiver intentionally harm an old lady aged 92  !

(1) the care-giver pulled up a dizzy, disabled elderly from bed (2) care-giver led old lady's stick forward (3) the stick was farther and farther (4) before the stick touched down floor, caregiver already turned (5) caregiver turned back and left very soon without reasonable statement (6)  old lady aged 92 fell down backward and suffered injuries.
The caregiver's sister broke another old lady's arm by similar way, therefore, the caregiver is suspicious of intentional harm act or even murder.  However, the prosecutor thinks the caregiver has no responsibility at all.  
 

 

 pic: Taiwanese judge thinks dizzy, sleepy,  disabled elderly (aged about 90) definitely can stand independently during sleeping time
   ps: hospital: medicines may cause dizzy 

pic: prosecutor Wen's non-prosecutorial disposition

 

 

2.

 Prosecutor Yang Wan-Yeu

A suspected home intruder/invader  kept insulting by strident voice & violent words like "You're incompetent", and stayed 30-50 minutes after having received formal expel-notice to leave, eventually police with guns came .... Taiwan's prosecutors of Taipei District Court concluded the 'home invader' was not intend to stay the residence  because the 'invader' left the house after armed police's "communication & persuasion", eventually the prosecutor decided not to indict the home-invader.    The high court concluded the humiliation phrase "You're incompetent" is a subjective view and is not against the law.    (details of this case pls click home invasion, self defense, deliberate humiliation case )

 

3.

 Detective Chen You-Ren 陳宥任

 

  A fake criminal case referral paper !!  

 

  Criminal case referral paper (刑案移送書) The statement by the accused (筆錄)
 
The
statement by the suspect:

The suspect...stated: ... so he Push the victim down to floor by a chair

 

 

Q:  Did you hold out against the victim's chest by a chair , and attacked by your fist...

 

A: ...I held victim's (un-welcome home-invader) arm by my hand and ask the victim leave my home ...

  SO....

Songshan Precinet, Taipei City Police Department faked the accused's statement   ―   "by hand" was changed to "by chair",  "hold the arm" became "down to floor")

(details of this case pls click home invasion, self-defense case )

 

pic.: "台灣檢察官" 排名Yahoo search第1, 2-27-2018

 

pic.: "台灣檢察官" 排名Bing第1, 2-27-2018

 

pic.: "台灣司法評論" 排名Yahoo search第1, 2-27-2018

 

pic.: "台灣司法評論" 排名Bing第1, 2-27-2018

 

 

a larceny /theft/damage & impairment case ruled by Prosecutor WEN TZU-TE

 

  comment Taiwan legal system

 Argument  1. 

 

 

   

   ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
 
    The non-Prosecutor disposition states The suspect (household caregiver) pulled up the victim from bed till she stood stable in position with a stick, then the suspect turned back seemly to turn on the light or open the toilet door, at this moment, the victim released the stick and fell backward, the suspect turned back again and tried to hold the victim ...  Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE think it's difficult to know the suspect lacks reasonable care, it's neither a negligent conduct nor intentional harm/ willful act .  

   ● The victim/accuser :  It is a  criminal act!

       (1) The  victim is disabled elderly, aged 92, and is in a status of sleepy and dizzy for having taken  6 medication each with hospital's warning-remark: falling prevention .   The evidence DVD shows very clearly the old lady is dizzy and the whole body was very disabled.  

       (2)  The suspect led (by her hand) the old lady to move her stick one step ahead, at the very same moment  the suspect turned back,  before the  stick touched down the floor, dizzy old lady was already unstable and loosened her hand on the stick and fell down backward.    Even in daytime, the old lady is unstable, let alone It's sleeping time in very early morning.

       (3)  The suspect admitted supporting the old lady to move is her main job, she have been doing this correctly every day and night for about 6 months, in total about 1500~1800 times .  It's impossible the suspect, a young girl's brain memory did not serve only this time,  she should do it in safe way as usual -   first of all turn on the restroom light or open the toilet door when the old lady sit or lie on bed.   So, obviously it is an intentional harm/ willful act.  

       (4)  For years the old lady took lots of medicines, 6 of those cause dizziness, must prevent from falling.  The suspect certainly knew the old lady was unstable according to her day after day experience.  DVD shows the old lady is general fatigue very clearly.   So, it is an intentional crime.

         (5) The suspect's sister/bestie, a household care-giver had broken a 88 yrs-old old lady's arm by the same way - pulled her up and turn back, let her fall down behind.   Is it possible the suspect make terrible mistake again by accident?? 

 

        (6)  The suspect's blood sister made a phone call to apology the suspect "hit" the old lady.  It is easy for the Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE  to find out the truth   just investigate the phone.

        (7)  the Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE should read some previous judgments, such as (Chinese version)

  臺南地方法院刑事判決103年度訴緝字第49號,「疏未注意,而讓林徐達自編號H2床上跌落地上」;臺灣高雄地方法院刑事判決九十一年度訴字第三二七二號 ,竟容任失智之老人獨自乘坐輪椅」;臺灣士林地方法院刑事判決99年度訴字第196號,「竟疏於注意照料,未予適時翻身,及避免李松岩跌倒及翻身之力道與臥床之姿勢、動作...」 ;以上受害人均被置於相對穩定安全之床、椅,被告尚且有罪,本案被告任由老人於睡夢間精神恍惚中獨自站立,失職更為嚴重
  聯合報(1-21-2016)大標題「印尼看護扶翁雙雙跌倒 遭告到返國」

 

        Therefore, what the suspect did is intentional harm/ willful act to impair a old lady, at least it is negligent conduct or fault liability impairment.

      

 

 

 

comment Taiwan Prosecutor/judges

Argument  2. 

 

 

 

  ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
 
    The non-prosecutorial disposition states the  accused acknowledged she did throw away the  porcelain-chinaware, and expressed she can only understand simple Chinese language, it's because the victim 's son kept asking her 3 times to throw it away, so she followed his direct.

      Therefore the Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE ruled that the possibility of misunderstanding can't be ruled out.

  The victim :  It is a  criminal act of larceny /theft / damage

       (1) In the Inquiry Session dated 2-2-2016,  prosecutor-investigator questioned the caregiver (suspect) why she threw away a fine-quality porcelain-chinaware,  the caregiver answered "he hurt ...".   So,  the suspect already acknowledged mistake and proved what she did (larceny /theft, damage and even made old lady falling ) were designed to revenge a "hurt" which is her persecution mania or a trick -  because the house she work installed many video-camera, hence, any hurt will be taped as evidence.

       (2)  misunderstanding is not possible at all

           <1> reason 1: all related words such as "you", "throw it away", "do not" etc, are included in the suspect's <working manual - commonly used Chinese > , only 2 pages, 100+ words in total,  the suspect learned that 100 words for more than 4 months already,  and heard the direct "throw away"(garbage) day after day for several months , furthermore, all Indonesian must take intensive class about 3 months, if failed the test they are not allowed to come Taiwan.

   
            

             <2> reason 2:   The Prosecutor/judge summoned a witness who stated the suspect knows about 1/10 Chinese language.  According to a study (The most common Chinese characters in order of  frequency ) by Harvard Univ., all related words in this legal case locate within top range (of course within 1/10).   Eventually, the Prosecutor/judge changed his mind and does not buy the witness testimony.

             <3> reason 3:    the victim and victim 's son already stated by documents and statement in the Inquiry Session more than 2 times that porcelain is a legacy from her brother and a memento of remembrance, it's impossible to order the suspect to throw it away, so, misunderstanding won't happen to reacting "no order".    

             <4> reason 4:  The suspect agreed it's a fine-quality porcelain-chinaware, so, it's unreasonable and impossible for victim 's son ordered her to throw it away.   It violates the rule of thumb (erfahrungsmasig).

 

       (3) The suspect did all shopping by herself for more than 4 months, this proves she has enough Chinese comprehension ability. 

       (4) The non-prosecutorial disposition wrote the  accused expressed  the victim 's son "took out that porcelain-chinaware from refrigerator ", " asked her to throw it away 3 times consecutively ".    However, the evidence DVD proves the suspect did not follow his order to throw it away.   The prosecutor did not look the evidence DVD, obviously !

       (5)  Shifting the blame by "It's boss's order " to fool the judge is commonly seen in previous judgments, such as (in Chinese):

 

新北地方法院刑事判決104年度易字第1430號: 「被告空言辯稱上開物品係雇主所丟棄或贈送云云,自不足採,其主觀上顯有不法所有之竊盜犯意甚明。」
臺中地方法院刑事簡易判決101年度中簡字第1022號 、101年度偵緝字第406號: 「被害人有同意,他也知情」...「 實難想像被害人同意給被告系爭現金。」
臺北地方法院刑事判決九十一年度易字第一九 號: 「 復又翻異前詞,改辯稱:係阿公..陸續給伊錢云云」...「惟於本院審理中矢口否認犯罪,並飾詞狡辯
高雄地方法院刑事簡易判決100年度簡字第4785號: 「辯稱被竊毛衣及牛仔裙均為告訴人贈送」已置於被告實力支配內,本件被告竊盜 犯行應堪認定」 ;
 

 

       (6)  DVD shows the suspect did not throw the  porcelain together with other garbage into the trash bag, instead, she held the trash bag by right hand, held the porcelain in left hand, and walk out, later, the porcelain disappeared.

 

       (7)  That porcelain is a property of the victim, from DVD evidence, she sit next to the refrigerator, why the suspect did not ask her if it should be throw away?

 

 

 

 

comment Taiwan judiciary

Argument 3. 

 

 

   ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
 
    The non-prosecutorial disposition states there's no proof to prove the suspect did them by intention, and those are not criminal wrongdoings.

 

   ● The victim :  It is a  criminal act of larceny /theft / damage

 

     (1) DVD as evidence:

The suspect admitted mistakes

The victim's son Anise, did you say last time that you will not throw any stuffs away any more
Anise Yes, sir
The victim's son That porcelain-chinaware is expensive
Anise what?
The victim's son Last time we saw it around Costco area, it cost 800 dollars
Anise Yes, sir
The victim's son Besides, don't spend too much time on shopping in RT-Mart
Anise silent and unhappy

  

   (2) The DVD proved the suspect deceited the officials several times, and should not be trusted.  Actually, many foreign laborers are hidden crimes, The United Daily 聯合報( 3-1-2016): "foreign laborers, one after another, came and run away illegally, " "More and more illegal foreign laborers are looking for jobs in Taiwan".  The image of maids in "House of Cards" of USA and Singapore's <Ilo Ilo> (Cannes film award) is a thief.   In contrast, The victim's son has a press card from Euro.

                Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE suppose know which one is trustable by doctrine of discretional evaluation of evidence.
     

 

 

 

 

comment Taiwan judiciary

 

Argument 4. 

 

   ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
 
    

       The non-prosecutorial disposition states the Cathay hospital M.D. letter (9 months later than the date crimes occurred) mentioned there's no obvious external injury and broken-bone by X-ray examination.

  

   The victim : 

 

        (1) The medical records issued by Cathay Hospital proves the old lady suffered contusion etc.  The M.D. did  Patrick's test and medical examinations on local tenderness over low back area (see pic below)

 

        (2) The NTUH's  medical certificate (Certificate of diagnosis) proves it's a compression fracture by C.T. scan examination taken 2 months later.

 

 
        (3) The Supreme court's judgment : both medical records and
medical certificate can be legal proof.

 

          (4)  Many other judgments (The prosecutor charged those cases for victims' contusion, or just painful without obvious external injuries) documents (in Chinese) support victim in this case

 

   

           ●灣高等法院臺中分院刑事判決九十一年度交上易字第九四六號臺中地方法院刑事判決九十年度交易字第七0五號,證明書雖記載 『乙○○無明顯外傷』,但記載『後腰部酸痛感』,而財團法人仁愛綜合醫院之診斷證明書診斷時記載『背部挫傷,病人於急診就醫後出院』等語,互核之下受傷部位尚無不符之情形 」該案因過失傷害人 ,處拘役參拾日
           ●
臺灣嘉義地方法院刑事簡易判決104年度嘉交簡字第190號 ,「告訴人經該院醫師檢查結果,雖發現背部疼痛,但無明顯外傷、瘀傷,此有該 院病情說明書附卷可稽(見本院交易卷第14頁),足認告訴人所受傷害尚屬輕微 」,該案依業務過失傷害罪,判處拘役貳拾伍日
             ●
臺灣彰化地方法院刑事簡易判決105年度審簡字第64號 ,「經本院勘驗結果認:『陳同學臉頰無明顯外傷,皮膚顏色略紅,沒有任何腫起 或瘀青之情形』,處拘役拾日
           ●
臺灣高等法院臺中分院刑事判決95年度上易字第1023號 臺中地方法院刑事判決95年度易字第478號「所受之傷害輕微,僅有紅紅之挫傷症狀,並無明顯外傷等一切情狀,量處如主文所示之刑,並諭知易科罰金之折算標準,以示懲儆。 」,處拘役參拾日
           ●
臺灣雲林地方法院刑事判決104年度易字第994號 ,「告訴人急診時雖有手足鈍挫傷,但並無明顯外傷等情 ,此有急診檢傷護理評估表乙份在卷可參(見偵2571卷第43頁),足見告訴人所受傷勢尚非嚴重,復參酌被告2 人於偵查中曾表示願意調解...,處有期徒刑參月;    
          ●
臺灣臺北地方法院刑事判決99年度易字第3331號 「雖於急診護理紀錄上有『現無明顯外傷』   等語句之記載,然觀諸急診病歷上確有於頭部示意圖上載明 受傷之部位甚明,且西園醫院於99年6月12日所出具之第 0000000號診斷證明書上,亦確載明王惠琴於99年6月12日該院急診,經診斷王惠琴受有右側頭皮挫傷 之傷害等情甚明,處拘役參拾日; 
    
臺灣苗栗地方法院刑事判決九十二年度簡上字第一0三號耳鼻喉科門診檢查(指複診),耳膜完整無破損,外觀無明顯外傷,患者拒做聽力檢查,故無法得知其耳 鳴及聽力受損知情形。...告訴人受有耳腮挫傷之傷害,更對其心理形成影響,且被告犯後否認有致傷之結果,迄今亦未與告訴人 達成民事和解,故告訴人當庭表示不願意原諒被告,本應嚴罰重懲 」,處拘役貳拾日
     

   (4)  睽諸法院判例,告訴人主訴疼痛傷害即作起訴者,比如
  
臺灣臺南地方法院刑事判決104年度交簡上字第296號 , 告訴人在醫師問診時,主訴胸部、雙髖部及左大腿疼痛,此互核相符,足認告訴人確因本件交通事故受有胸壁、雙髖部、左大腿之扭傷及拉傷等傷害,被告空言辯稱告訴人當時並未受傷云云,顯與事實不符,自無足採。...迄今未能與告訴人達成和解,賠償告訴人所受一切損害...量處拘役50日」
            ●
臺灣臺北地方法院刑事判決104年度易字第200號 朱蕙璟前額無明顯外傷,微腫但主訴疼痛、右臉頰無明顯外傷,但主訴疼痛之傷害,李發萱則受有右側前臂擦挫傷、頭部與頸部不適之傷害。因認被告李發萱、朱蕙璟均涉犯刑法第277 條第1 項之傷害罪嫌等語

     睽諸法院判例,甚至只須病歷證明疑似挫傷亦遭起訴並判刑,比如
  
98年度偵字第11665號過失傷害 等案件 、臺灣臺中地方法院刑事判決98年度易字第3107號而斯時既已無明顯外傷,則驗傷診斷書記載 『無明顯外傷、疑似左頸部挫傷、疑似左肩部挫傷』即屬依據客觀事證予以登載,由此反益徵告訴人甲○○之指述係屬實在,否則要無在並未發生此事之前提下, 竟率爾提出如此內容之驗傷診斷書作為提出傷害告訴之憑據 」,處拘役貳拾伍日
  
臺灣高雄地方法院刑事判決103年度簡上字第56號醫院之紀錄卻無明顯外傷 ,...聖功醫院103年8月4日勝功醫字第0000000000 號函...已明確指出告訴人於就診當時表示傷勢為被打擊、疼痛,醫療上疑似鈍傷,故告訴人確有鈍傷之傷勢無誤。...故實難以告訴人之左臉外觀無明顯紅腫之傷勢,即認告訴人左臉未受有鈍傷之傷害...均難以為被告有利之認定。 」量處拘役40日

 


 

 

 

   

 

 

 

pic: The medical record of that day proves the victim suffered contusion of buttock and back, local tenderness over low back area.   However, the prosecutor Wen Tzu-Te didn't buy it, which is quite different from many previous judgments by High court and local courts (pls. see those cases listed above). .

 

 

★ PS: The victim's arguments above are briefing from the document to High Court for reconsideration

Pls click to read full details & exact meanings in Chinese ...

 

 

 

Conclusion /
  

Prosecutor Wen TZU-TE (now got a promotion to be the judge in Aug. 2016) took about 8 months to investigate this simple (with evidence DVD) case, and release the non-prosecutorial disposition at 8-8-2016 Father's Day ("8" in Chinese sounds "Father").   This is an coincidence, hope not a metaphor.

 

Experts, scholars, and all Taiwanese people , do you agree at Prosecutor's conclusion ?? How do you like if your maid did the same thing to you??

 

◆  Suggest:   A new law to disqualify unqualified prosecutors and judges, intentionally making a wrong conclusion or judgment.   Any officer seriously violating the law should be eliminated from the justice field!

 

 

 

ps: The High court rejected the victim's reconsideration document because they count the 7-days due from the date that building custodian/attendant at counter in 1st floor  received non-prosecutorial disposition, instead of the victim in 12th floor received it.  

 

            Taiwan judicial system, criticism                  this site's world No. 1 in  2017~18,  2016 2015 2014,  2013 2010~12                    
  home  brief  human rights  tour  personality  food  medical  restaurants  night market women  speech   erotic   watching   judiciary  police  corruption  foreign labor  prosecutors  soft power  death penalty  happiness  housing  avia  image  creativity

 

 

pic.: No.1 ranking on google by keyword "Taiwan prosecutors",  test at 9-3-2016 pic.: No.1 ranking on google by keyword "comment Taiwan judiciary" in Chinese,  test at 3-11-2017, 9-3-2016