I’ve been following the case involing the son-in-law of Chen. Let me start out by saying that
I don’t have an opinion about him or his family, since I haven’t read that much about them.
However, I’m curious about the legal system practiced in Taiwan. Are people presumed innocent until proven guilty in Taiwan?
The prosecutor(s) in the case seem to be able to pick up the son-in-law from the jail
and question him as they please. Doesn’t he have the right to remain silent?
Also, why does the prosecutor make him confront his alleged partners-in-crime?
(the others who were involved in the insider trading scheme)
The prosecutor has been granted permission to hold Zhao in prison while the investigation proceeds, with a stated goal of preventing him from discussing the case with possible conspirators. He still has the right to see his attorneys, but he does not have the right to meet with anyone else.
Note that the “right to remain silent” is a late 20th century American invention; it’s not clear to me at all whether the Taiwanese legal system grants that right. I know many other legal systems do not.
[quote=“creamypanda”]…so it’s up to the prosecutor having to prove Zhao’s guilt,
as opposed to Zhao having to prove his innocence?[/quote]
Yes, that’s what the term presumed innocent means.
CP -
The “right to remain silent” thing is part of the Miranda ruling for actions at time of arrest. It was put in place to allow those arrested the 'right’to not answer any questions, which might later be used by the prosecution, until they have an attorney with them.
The Miranda Act -
[quote]Miranda Rights
The Miranda rights rule is a doctrine that a criminal suspect in police custody must be informed of certain constitutional rights before being interrogated. The suspect must be advised of the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if the suspect cannot afford one. If the suspect is not advised of these rights or does not validly waive them, any evidence obtained during the interrogation cannot be used against the suspect at trial.[/quote]
The 5th Amendment -
[quote] "Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."[/quote]
Is something quite different and commonly mis-understood. And its applicable only in the USA.
There was no actual “Miranda Act”. The term refers to the case MIRANDA vs. State of Arizona, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1966.
The US Supreme Court’s decision was indeed based on their interpretation of the 5th Amendment, but up until 1966, no such interpretation existed. And yes, strictly a US thing.
[quote=“cctang”]There was no actual “Miranda Act”. The term refers to the case MIRANDA vs. State of Arizona, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1966.
The US Supreme Court’s decision was indeed based on their interpretation of the 5th Amendment, but up until 1966, no such interpretation existed. And yes, strictly a US thing.[/quote]cctang -
It is widely know and referred to as the “Miranda Act.” It is also referred to as the “Miranda Decision”, “Miranda Warning”, “Miranda Rights” and to be “Miranda’ed/Mirandized” among other widely used references to the Miranda decision.
Pedantics notwithstanding, it is completely common and accepted to refer to the Miranda Act when discussing this court decision.
And, as shown, the 5th Amendment is not limited to nor solely based upon a defedants rights to not “…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”
I am not an attorney nor do I play one on the internet.
IMO nope. Seems to me that culture still has a strong bearing on wheather a person is ‘gulity’ or ‘innocent’. Being the fact that the son in law of a president who is already looked down upon by the public I don’t think that he’s gonna get a unbaised hearing. But who needs that when you gonna play the guanxi card anyway. :s
The best part is that I believe that even if he is found innocent in the end of this, the purple tv’s and media will say that it was CSB who used his Guanxi super joker card to get him out of jail.
On the other hand, on the case of the body that was found in the mayor office, no one seems to even care… (maybe if the body was found in the presidential office, there would be allready 347384724234 episodes on tv about it)…
