In Taiwan, criminal cases can go on indefinitely and defendants can be detained for years, even decades, on end. A proposed speedy and fair trial law aims to tackle the problem — but critics say it would only make the situation worse.
在台灣，刑事案件可以無限期進行下去，而被告也可以被連續羈押好幾年、甚至數十年。為了要解決這個問題， (司法院) 著手制定一個妥適、迅速且公正的審理法──但許多評論者也表示，這部法律只會讓整個情況更糟。
By Celia Llopis-Jepsen, STAFF REPORTER, Sunday, Jan 03, 2010, Page 13, Taipei Times
記者Celia Llopis-Jepsen報導，星期日，2010年1月3日，頁13，台北時報
譯者／邱麗玲 校正／楊宗澧
On Dec. 21, 1987, a young boy disappeared while walking home from school in Hsinchu. Lu Cheng (陸正) was only 9 years old. His family never saw him again.
1987年12月21日，新竹一個年僅9歲的男孩，陸正在步行放學途中失蹤。從此，他的家人再也沒有見過他。
Shortly after his disappearance, Lu's family was contacted by the kidnappers, who demanded a ransom that the family then paid. But the kidnappers did not return their young victim, nor was his body ever found.
就在他失蹤後不久，陸家接到綁匪的電話；對方指定贖金，陸家也隨後支付贖款。但是綁匪不但沒有釋回這男孩，甚至連屍體也未曾尋獲。
Twenty-two years later, the case of Lu's murder is not finished. It is currently Taiwan's longest-running ongoing criminal case. Of the 12 original defendants, three are still in court — Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順) Lin Kun-ming (林坤明) and Wu Shu-chen (吳淑貞) — fighting their convictions. Some of the suspects were also charged in a separate crime that occurred the same year — the murder and dismemberment of Ko Hung Yu-lan (柯洪玉蘭), a female insurance agent.
22年之後，這宗陸姓學童謀殺案尚未定讞。這是台灣目前仍在進行中最久的案件。在12個原始被告當中，有3個人仍在法院裡纏訟，力抗多次的有罪判決──他們分別是邱和順、林坤明及吳淑貞。本案的幾位犯罪嫌疑人也同時遭指控涉嫌同年發生的另一件刑案──女保險員柯洪玉蘭的謀殺及分屍案。
Taiwan has almost 200 ongoing criminal cases that have lasted for more than 10 years. A draft law proposed by the Judicial Yuan — the “Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act” (刑事妥速審判法) — aims to resolve cases like these. But critics are taking sharp aim at the bill, calling it “perverse” and warning that it would cause more miscarriages of justice.
台灣有將近200多個超過10年而仍在進行中的案件。司法院推出《刑事妥速審判法》草案，原本旨在解決這類的案件。但是批評者也疾言厲色地指出，這是一部包藏禍心的法律，甚至警告這個法律將會造成更多的司法錯判。
The case of Chiou, Lin and Wu (commonly known as the Lu Cheng case or, in legal circles, as the Chiou Ho-shun case) is one of Taiwan's most controversial — none of the evidence in either crime was ever linked to the defendants. Fingerprints found on a bank slip handled by Lu's kidnapper did not match those of any of the people arrested by police. Prosecutors claimed a recording of the kidnapper's voice matched that of one of the 12 defendants, but the whereabouts of the tape are unknown.
邱和順、林坤明及吳淑貞的案子 (本案多以「陸正案」這個名稱為人所熟知，或者在法律圈中以「邱和順案」稱之) 是台灣最具爭議性的案件之一。本案沒有任何證據可以證明他們有罪。在綁匪拿過的銀行字條上所採樣到的指紋，與警察所逮捕的所有嫌疑犯的指紋，沒有一個是相符合的。當年檢察官聲稱綁匪的錄音與12個被告的其中一人吻合；然而，該捲錄音帶至今依舊下落不明。
The defendants were arrested based on a tip and held incommunicado for months, during which time they were tortured and confessed. The sounds of torture were caught on audio tapes of the interrogations, and in the 1990s several police officers were impeached and convicted of torture and lying to the court.
當年，這些被告因為祕密情資被逮捕，並且收押禁見數個月。這期間，他們在刑求之下供出認罪自白，而警察的刑求錄音都顯示在詢問過程的錄音帶中。在1990年代，有多名警察因為這項證據而被監察院彈劾，法院也對這些警察作出有罪判決。
Yet the defendants' confessions were used against them in court and all were convicted.
儘管如此，這些被告的刑求自白依舊被法院採用，作為認定他們有罪的證據。
Then, six years ago, a man named Hu Guan-bao (胡關寶) made a chilling confession just before his execution. Hu, who had headed a kidnapping gang, said he had killed Lu. The confession was ignored.
大約在六年前，一名叫做胡關寶的死刑犯於伏法前作了個令人不寒而慄的自白。曾經身為綁架集團首腦的他，坦承就是自己殺害了陸正。然而，這個自白並未受到重視。
Chiou has spent more than two decades in a cell at Taipei Detention Center while his case continues. He has been through trial after trial. At every High Court trial he is convicted, after which the Supreme Court — like clockwork — orders a retrial based on flaws in the case. His case goes back to the High Court, where he is again convicted. He is now in his 12th High Court trial.
邱和順已經在台北看守所裡待了超過20年的歲月，而他的案件依舊在進行中。就如同日復一日的時鐘器械一般，他歷經一次又一次的審判。在高等法院每次的判決裡，他都被認定有罪；而上訴到最高法院之後，他的案件又一再因審判瑕疵而發回更審。這個案子目前又回到多次判定他有罪的高等法院，這也是他在高等法院裡面第12次所面對的審判。
Of the three defendants still in court, Chiou faces the death penalty, while Lin and Wu face prison terms of 17 and 11 years, respectively — shorter, ironically, than the 22 years they've spent waiting for the case to be resolved. Lin, like Chiou, has spent those 22 years in the Taipei Detention Center. Wu, a woman, is allowed to live at home while the case proceeds.
在三名依舊遊走在法庭的被告中，邱和順是唯一一個面臨死刑的被告；至於林坤明及吳淑貞，則是分別面臨17年及11年的刑期。然而令人感到諷刺的是，這卻是他們耗費了22年所等待到的結果；兩相比較之下，審判的期日竟然比宣判的刑期還要長！林坤明，就如同邱和順一樣，都在台北看守所裡度過22年的歲月。至於本案唯一的女性吳淑貞，則是在本案進行中，得以在家裡與親人一起生活。
Of the other nine original defendants, one died in prison and the rest eventually dropped their right to appeal after losing hope of being acquitted.
至於其餘9名的原始共同被告中，已有1人死於獄中，剩餘8人則是在對無罪宣告的判決失去希望時，甚至放棄了他們的上訴權。
In Taiwan's criminal system, trials for murder and other serious crimes can bounce indefinitely between the High Court and Supreme Court. This is because the Supreme Court can remand a case to the High Court for retrial as many times as it likes.
在台灣的刑事訴訟體系中，涉及謀殺以及其他嚴重犯罪的審判案件，都可能無限期地在高等法院及最高法院之間來來去去。因為，只要經過最高法院認定有疑義，就會一再地把案件發回給高等法院更審。
JUDICIAL PING-PONG / 司法乒乓球
The result is that some cases become stuck in a kind of legal limbo. In legal circles, this situation is called shangchong xiaxi (上沖下洗) — being “flushed up and washed back down” between the High and Supreme courts.
這樣一來的結果就是，有一些案子會「卡」在這個「合法的程序」裡頭。在法律界，這個狀態俗稱「上沖下洗」，也就是在高等法院及最高法院之間來回循環，不斷上訴又駁回。
This is especially common in controversial cases, lawyer Lin Feng-jeng (林峰正), executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation, said in an interview.
民間司法改革基金會的執行長林峰正律師在一次的訪問中表示，「『上沖下洗』正是對台灣爭議性案件最常見的評論！」
“Experience shows that the longer a case runs, the less likely it is to be either truthful or just,” reads a statement on his foundation's Web site.
「就經驗而言，一個案子審理越久，就越難有真相及正義可言！」在司改會的網站上，就有著這麼一句聲明。
Chiou's case is a classic example.
邱和順的案子就是一個經典案例。
Even more troubling, defendants can be detained indefinitely while their case undergoes retrial after retrial.
即使時間越久而越難有真相及正義可言，但這些被告卻依舊在案件來回更審時遭到無限期羈押。
This fall, the Judicial Yuan responded to calls for change by proposing the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act. The proposed legislation aims to stop long-running cases in three key ways:
今 (2009) 年秋天，司法院對於民間所提出的幾項建言及呼籲，推出了《刑事妥速審判法》草案作為回應。草案提出幾項立法，旨要是希望藉由以下三點來停止長期訟累的案件。
‧ If a case has lasted more than 10 years (there are currently 187 such cases), the courts would be empowered to simply drop it — in which case the defendant would be found neither guilty nor innocent — or to commute the sentence, after which the ruling would be final.
‧如果案件已經持續超過10年 (目前有187個像這樣的案件) ，法院可以依其職權「終止訴訟程序」──如此一來，我們將無法得知該案的被告究竟是有罪或無罪。或者，還有另外一個作法，就是在法院作出最後一審的判決後，酌量「減輕其刑」。
‧ If a case has already lasted six years (there are currently 203 such cases) and the defendant has been found innocent three times by the High Court, the not-guilty verdict would be final.
‧如果案件已經審理超過6年 (目前有203個像這樣的案件) ，且被告三度被高等法院判定無罪時，該案也可以依此判決而定讞。
‧ If a case has lasted six years and been remanded by the Supreme Court for retrial at the High Court at least three times, and the High Court again convicts the defendant, the judgment would be final unless it violates the Constitution, a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices or legal precedent; or if there is a substantial misunderstanding of the facts in the crime.
‧如果案件已經審理超過6年，至少被最高法院三度發回高等法院，而高等法院也已經再重起審理並判定有罪時，除非該判決違憲、違反司法院解釋、違背判例，或者有明顯重大違誤的事實認定，否則該次的有罪判決將可就此定讞。
The draft law was passed by the Judicial Yuan on Oct. 15 but has yet to be put to a vote in the legislature.
該草案在 (2009年) 10月15日於司法院通過，但至今尚未被立法機構投票表決。
But the proposal has drawn condemnation from lawyers, academics and others. The Judicial Reform Foundation and Taichung District Court Judge Chang Sheng-hsin (張升星) are among its most vocal opponents.
然而，這個草案卻普遍受到來自律師界、學術界以及其他團體的譴責及反對。民間司法改革基金會以及台中地方法院法官張升星，都是這群反對聲浪的其中一員。
Chang, who has published a series of op-eds in newspapers attacking the law, says it “perverts legal theory.”
張升星在報紙專欄中強力抨擊該草案，並批評這是「悖離法學理論」。
“How did [the Judicial Yuan] calculate these magic numbers?” he wrote in the United Daily News. Why “six years with three retrials” and not “seven years with two retrials?”
「到底 (司法院) 是如何統計出這些速審法的魔術數字？」在 (2009年10月5日的) 聯合報論壇裡，張升星提出質疑，為什麼是「六年更審三次」而不是「七年更審二次」？
“Some [feel] the draft expressly assumes that the defendant is guilty,” he told the Taipei Times. “Otherwise why does the defendant have to win three times to be declared innocent?”
「這個草案，很明顯地就是假定這些被告都是有罪的。」他告訴記者說，「否則，為什麼那些被告必須贏得三次的無罪判決來宣告自己的清白無罪？」
“The whole draft law should be scrapped,” he said.
「這整部草案都該丟棄掉啦！」他說。
The Judicial Yuan is ignoring the real reasons a case like Chiou's can last 22 years, he said. “The situation can't be fixed with a law.”
「司法院完全忽視真正造成像邱和順案這樣22年案件的主要肇因。」張升星表示，「這些情況根本就沒有辦法用這部《速審法》來解決。」
Chang said the Supreme Court is a big part of the problem. It has the power to give a final ruling in controversial cases, but instead often continues to order retrials to avoid issuing a judgment that could draw criticism from the legal community.
張升星說，最高法院是這個問題的最大核心。它有權力定讞一個具有爭議性的案件，卻常常不斷發回高等法院更審，以避免自己成為那個在法律社群裡面被議論紛紛而遭致批評的人。
The Supreme Court is shirking its responsibility, Chang said. And the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act, if enacted, would make that even easier — the court could simply drop a case after 10 years.
「最高法院在逃避它的責任！」張升星這麼說著。一旦《刑事妥速審判法》真的頒布施行了，那麼他們就能更輕而易舉的迴避問題了──因為法院只要在10年之後終止案件，就能解決一切紛爭。
But what if the person detained for 10 years was actually innocent? The courts could let the person go without having to admit their error by declaring them innocent.
但是那些被羈押超過10年的人如果真的是無辜的話，那又該怎麼辦呢？法院可以在不必承認任何過失的情況下，宣告他們無罪而當庭釋放。
PRESSURE TO CONVICT /輿論施壓定罪!?
This is a denial of justice, Chang said, because if an innocent person has been wrongfully detained, he or she is entitled to damages under the Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice Act (冤獄賠償法). Yet if there is no final acquittal, the former defendant cannot apply for compensation.
「這就不是正義了啊！」張升星如是說著。「因為如果一個無辜的人被錯押，他們將可以根據《冤獄賠償法》的規定而得到補償金。然而，假若這個人最後並未獲得無罪的判決，這個人就無法請求冤獄賠償。」
Furthermore, although it would theoretically be possible to reopen a case that has been dropped, this would only apply if new evidence or facts are found, which Chang said would be highly unlikely.
除此之外，雖然理論上任何一個已經終結的案件都可以被重起再審，但這是只有在有新的證據或事實被認定的時候才可以聲請的。而張升星也表示，這是極度不可能發生的事。
Chang said the Supreme Court is also just too big — it is the largest final court of appeal in the world, with around 100 judges — and this leads to very different interpretations of the law.
張升星指出，最高法院的組織太龐大了──台灣有全世界最大的終審法院體系，有將近100名的法官──而這也是導致台灣有太多不同見解與法律解釋的原因。
There has been talk of downsizing for a decade, Chang said, but the number of Supreme Court judges continues to increase.
「台灣已經討論要縮編法院組織體系超過十年了，但是最高法院的法官數量依舊在持續增加中。」張升星說著。
One of the lawyers in the Chiou case, Greg Yo (尤伯祥), said the law is not only pointless, it's dangerous. It would “cause even more miscarriages of justice,” he said.
邱和順案的律師團成員之一，尤伯祥律師也表示，「法律沒有一個唯一的定見，這是非常危險的一件事；這甚至會造成更多的冤案。」
Lin Feng-jeng of the Judicial Reform Foundation said the real problem the Judicial Yuan needs to tackle is the quality of its own judges.
民間司法改革基金會的林峰正律師甚至認為，司法院應該要正視問題的核心，也就是「法官的素質」！
Many judges do not believe in the presumption of innocence, he said in an interview, even though this is guaranteed under Article 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法).
「很多法官不相信『無罪推定』原則，儘管這是在《刑事訴訟法》第154條裡面所明文保障的基本精神。」林峰正這樣表示。
Judges are under a lot of pressure to put the “bad guys” behind bars, he said, even when there isn't enough evidence. After all, the public wants to see justice served. In some cases, judges may think, “this person couldn't possibly be innocent,” he said, even if there's little or no evidence. “They don't want to let someone get away.”
「法官在龐大的輿論壓力下將大家所認定的『壞人』關押到牢房裡去，即便他們沒有足夠的證據證明被告有罪。」林峰正說。「畢竟，人民都希望可以看到司法展現它積極作為的一面；而在某些案件裡，法官甚至會覺得，這個人不可能是無辜的。」即便只有極少的證據，甚至沒有證據可以證明之，法官依舊如此認為。「因為，他們不想錯放任何一個人。」
Furthermore, in retrials, judges are reluctant to overturn the decisions of other judges. Reputations are at stake. When a case is retried, three new judges are selected at the same court, but these judges are the colleagues of those who ruled in the previous trial.
除此之外，在許多更審的案件中，有些法官甚至不想推翻其他法官的決定。對於那些想要在同僚中保有好名聲的法官，此時更是關鍵！因為當一個案件再審時，一個法庭將會選任三個新的法官；但是，這些新法官也同時都是前審法官的同事。
They don't want to contradict their colleagues, he said. “Otherwise, how can you explain cases like Su Chien-ho [蘇建和]. The evidence is so unreasonable.”
「他們不想跟他們的同事作對！」林峰正說。「不然你看，『蘇建和案』又該作何解釋？那些證據都很不合理啊。」
Lin Feng-jeng was referring to the case known in English as the “Hsichih Trio,” Taiwan's most infamous murder trial. The trio — Su, Liu Bing-lang (劉秉郎) and Chuang Lin-hsun (莊林勳) — were on death row for years until their case was reopened. Lawyers say there is no evidence linking them to the 1991 murders they stand accused of, and that they were tortured into confessing. The case is being retried at the High Court.
林峰正在此所論及的案子，通用的英文名稱為「汐止三人」案。這宗謀殺案的審理是台灣司法史上最惡名昭彰的一件。這三人──蘇建和、劉秉郎及莊林勳──被關在死刑牢房裡好幾年，直到本案更審 (才被釋放)。律師團認為，沒有任何一項證據指向他們在1991年涉及該宗謀殺案，而他們甚至被刑求逼供，承認莫須有的罪名。目前，這個案子再度於高等法院更審中。
Su You-chen (蘇友辰), the head of the trio's defense team, has also panned the proposed amendment, calling it “unsettling” in a recent op-ed.
本案辯護律師團的成員之一，蘇友辰律師，也在近期的報紙 (2009年10月6日聯合報論壇) 上大力抨擊，直說這是「令人不舒服」的法案。
Su, Liu and Chuang are at least fortunate in one sense: Perhaps because of intense public pressure, they are no longer in detention while their case continues. One of the three has since finished university. Another is a staffer at an NGO.
就某個層面來說，蘇建和、劉秉郎及莊林勳至少是受幸運之神眷顧的。也許是因為強大的輿論壓力，他們不必在案件審理的時候再度面臨羈押。獲釋的三人當中，目前已有一人完成大學學業；而另外一人則是在人權團體工作。
But Chiou and Lin Kun-ming have not been as lucky. Nor are they likely to be released any time soon.
然而，邱和順及林坤明就沒有如此幸運了。短期之內，他們幾乎不太可能獲得釋放。
Last May, Chiou's lawyer Greg Yo filed an application with the Council of Grand Justices, asking them to rule on whether indefinite detention is constitutional. The justices have yet to respond.
去 (2008) 年八月，邱和順的辯護律師尤伯祥聲請大法官解釋，要求他們就「無限期羈押」是否合憲做出裁決。但是這項釋憲案，至今尚未得到回應。
How can Taiwan allow detention without limit, Lin Feng-jeng asked?
「台灣怎麼可以讓『羈押』這個制度沒有期間限制呢？」林峰正問。
“These people have never had their sentences finalized, but in reality, they're serving life in prison.”
「這些人還沒得到最終的審判。但是實際上，他們已在獄中耗盡了他們的人生…」
NOTE: For more information on the Chiou case, see the article titled “Groups pan judges over case marred by torture” on Page 2 of the May 22, 2009 edition of the Taipei Times, or read the article online.
備註：更多關於邱和順案的資訊，請見Taipei Times，2009年5月22日，第二版的「Groups pan judges over case marred by torture」報導。
