20位國際學者聯署聲明,憂台灣司法不公

Taipei Times


這是國民黨政府一系列大動作收押民進黨政府官員以來,國際學者首度發表公開聲明,呼籲台灣司法維持中立,勿受政治影響,以確保台灣民主與人權。

November 4, 2008

JOINT STATEMENT

US , European and Australian scholars and writers express concern about prosecutions in Taiwan

The undersigned, scholars and writers from the US , Europe and Australia wish to express their deep concern about the recent series of detentions in Taiwan of present and former DPP government officials. To date there have been at least seven such cases (See list below).

以下聯署的國際學者對於近日台灣政府一連串拘留卸任與現任民進黨政府官員的行動,深表憂慮。直至今日,據我們瞭解共有七件類似案件。

It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan , but these have occurred in both political camps. The political neutrality of the judicial system is an essential element in a democracy. It is also essential that any accused are considered innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

很明顯的,貪污這個問題在台灣依然存在,但是這樣的案例在兩大政黨裡均曾發生。司法系統維持政治中立是民主的基本要素。堅持任何被指控者在裁定有罪前均是無罪的法律理念也是必要的。

We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor's offices are severely flawed: while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law.

我們認為檢察官所採取的法律程序有著嚴重的缺失:雖然當一、兩位被指控者已被正式起訴時,大多數被指控者卻在未被正式起訴情況之下就遭到收押禁見。這嚴重違反了人身保護令以及正當法律程序、公義與法治。

In the meantime, the prosecutor's offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press. This kind of "trial by press" is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang authorities are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government. In addition, the people who are being held incommunicado are of course unable to defend themselves against the misreporting and the leaks in the news media.

在此同時,檢察官辦公室很明顯地將相關不利消息透露給媒體。這種「透過媒體辦案」的方式違反司法程序的基本標準;也讓外界認為國民黨政府利用司法系統來報復已下台的民進黨政府。此外,被收押禁見的人,在與外界斷絕聯繫的情況下,無法澄清外界不實報導與媒體洩密。

We do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan 's efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.

我們深信任何宣稱的犯罪行為應該以公正與公開的方式,在中立的法庭裡審判。透過法治落實司法,才能強化台灣民主與保障基本人權。

We do not want to see Taiwan 's hard-earned democracy jeopardized in this manner. Taiwan can justifiably be proud of its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It would be sad for Taiwan and detrimental to its international image if the progress which was made during the past 20 years would be erased. Taiwan needs to move forward, not backwards to the unfair and unjust procedures as practiced during the dark days of Martial Law (1947-87).

我們不願見到台灣辛苦得來的民主陷入如此困境。台灣因為在八零年代後期與九零年早期成功轉型為民主國家,而引以為傲。如果過去二十年來的民主進展從此抺煞,這不僅將令人難過,台灣的國際形象也將受到嚴害傷害。台灣必須向前邁進,而不應是開倒車回到過去戒嚴黑暗時代的不公與不義。

Signed:

簽署人:

Nat Bellocchi(白樂崎), former Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan  

Julian Baum(龐恩), former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic Review

Coen Blaauw(昆布老), Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC

David Prager Branner, Director at Large ( East Asia ), American Oriental Society

Gordon G. Chang(章家敦), author, "The Coming Collapse of China."

June Teufel Dreyer(金德芳), Professor of Political Science, University of Miami , Florida

Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin , Madison

Bruce Jacobs(家博), Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University , Melbourne , Australia

Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University , St. Paul Minnesota

Jerome F. Keating(祈夫潤), Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, "Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan 's complex history" and other works on Taiwan

Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations , University of Southern California

Victor H. Mair(梅维恒), Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania

Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College , Texas

Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba

Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa

John J. Tkacik Jr(谭慎格), Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC

Gerrit van der Wees(韋傑理), Editor Taiwan Communiqué, Washington DC

Vincent Wei-cheng Wang(王維政), Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond , Virginia

Arthur Waldron(林蔚), Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

Stephen Yates(葉望輝), President of DC Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs

Specific cases of concern:

-- The arrest and detention on October 15th of former Interior minister Yu Cheng-hsien(余政憲);

-- The arrest and detention on October 27th of former Hsinchu Science Park Director and Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection Dr. James Lee(李界木);

-- The arrest and detention on October 29th of DPP Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen(陳明文);

-- The indictment on October 30th of DPP Tainan City Councilor Wang Ting-yu(王定宇);

-- The arrest and detention on October 31st of former National Security Council (NSC) secretary-general and Deputy Prime Minister Chiou I-jen(邱義仁);

-- The questioning of former Foreign Minister Dr. Mark Chen(陳唐山) on November 3rd and insinuations in the press that he might be charged and arrested.

The arrest and detention on November 4th of DPP Yunlin County Magistrate Ms. Su Chih-fen(蘇治芬).


原載《Taipei Times》,November 5, 2008



http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/05/20/2003427918

2008-11-06

http://www.caochangqing.com   (轉載請指明出處)


 


 


_____________________________________________




貼個 中國時報 的 社論 來看吧


審前羈押絕非司法常態http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-Focus/2007Cti-Focus-Content/0,4518,9711090081+0+0+220532+0,00.html




  • 2008-11-09【中國時報 社論】

誰貪汙就辦誰,不因是藍是綠而有不同,完全正確;證據確鑿才會抓人,則似是而非。法治國家的基本原則,檢方掌握確鑿的有罪證據,基本動作應該是起訴,不是聲請羈押。因為審前羈押與處罰無異,憲法上的原則是未經全程的審判,不應處罰;審前羈押,只能在法定的例外情形為之。多年以來,不論是藍綠兩營,誰朝誰野,檢方辦案不能擺脫的習慣,就是有了證據,嫌犯不肯配合偵查,就用羈押做為對付的途徑。刑事訴訟法明文規定被告可以保持緘默的權利,在檢方看來,嫌疑人一旦保持緘默,總是視之為情虛畏罪的徵兆。這其實完全不合刑事訴訟的基本原則。


雲林檢方預告,因為證據確鑿,很快就可以對蘇縣長提起公訴。然而未能說明的是,既然證據確鑿,又何須以擔心被告串證為由,進行聲押?難道不是因為被告不肯合作,就用羈押做為威嚇的反制手段?

檢方用被告有串證之虞做為聲請羈押的事由,是實務上最受偏好的聲押說詞,卻往往是最為薄弱的聲押理由。刑事訴訟上要求檢方證明聲押的事由確有實據,檢方指控被告串證之虞,就必須證明被告如何串證,而不能僅提出以擔心、想像之詞。然則檢方只要能夠證明被告確在串證,其證據通常已可做為起訴之用,既然已可起訴,聲請羈押以限制人身自由,也就顯得多餘。這正是雲林地檢署偵辦蘇縣長貪汙一案,聲請羈押一事顯有破綻,自信有理卻惹得滿身政治腥騷的原因所在。




 


創作者介紹

臺北市北投區奇岩路151號中和禪寺後山章嘉活佛舍利塔需要您的探訪

章嘉活佛舍利塔 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()