When Even Judges “Jump on Bandwagon”

 When Even Judges “Jump on Bandwagon”

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

April 12, 2017

 Translation of an Except

In the case in which the Sunflower Movement students occupied the Executive Yuan (Cabinet House), the Taipei District Court found the eleven defendants guilty, while the leaders of the movement, Wei Yang and nine other defendants were acquitted. Comparing this with the case in which the Sunflower Movement students who occupied the Legislative Yuan were all acquitted, the decision this time adopted a negative attitude towards so-called "civil disobedience," forming "one movement, two judgments." More worthy of attention is those who were found guilty were all not well known participants, while the leaders of the movement were all acquitted. The “bandwagon effect” is very apparent in this case. This was exactly the scene in George Orwell's famous book Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

As soon as Premier Lin Chuan assumed office, the second official document he signed was to “withdraw” the criminal charges against the Sunflower Movement elements who intruded into the Cabinet House, which was tantamount to a declaration of political amnesty in this case. These atmospherics apparently cast a shadow over the subsequent trials, letting the scales of justice in the minds of the judges lose the goal of the target, and making the two judgments lose balance.

Comparing the results of the two judgments, when the Taipei District Court, in its first case, acquitted all 22 defendants who occupied the Legislative Yuan, its rationale especially made people feel justice was twisted. In that judgment, the judges invoked the political concept of the "civil disobedience" movement to embellish the actions of the protest. Moreover, while under the circumstances of knowing full well that the application was far-fetched, the judges even tailor-made “seven requirements” based on suitability, necessity, interconnection and a very narrow principle of proportionality, etc., for the "civil disobedience" of the Sunflower Movement, not minding twisting the law deliberately. It is no wonder that the outside world ridiculed the judges for "making laws" for the bending-over-backwards judgment.

But regrettably, in the succeeding two judgments, those leaders of the movement who called for actions and directed the rallies were all let off lightly. In the end, those who were convicted (in fact, given only light penalties) were all peripheral elements little known to the general public. If the judicial circles truly follow “jumping on the bandwagon,” and if judges fully understand the philosophy of “jumping on the bandwagon” in trails, then the judiciary cannot be truly independent. In the two succeeding judgments over the Sunflower Movement, the phenomenon that "some are more lawful than others" appeared; under the current political atmospherics, it can be seen who the aristocratic class in Taiwan’s Animal House are.

Attachment : none