[quote=“fenlander”]Taiwan law regarding presumed innocent or guilty is thus
"[i]Prior to a final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent.
The facts of an offense shall be established by evidence. The facts of an offense shall not be established in the absence of evidence.
The public prosecutor shall bear the burden of proof as to the facts of the crime charged against an accused, and shall indicate the method of proof[/i]".
Those are the original words.
The burden of proof was obviously enough as you were found guilty.[/quote]
fenlander, I think the argument is that Zain wasn’t fairly tried.
[quote=“Stray Dog”][quote=“fenlander”]Taiwan law regarding presumed innocent or guilty is thus
"[i]Prior to a final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent.
The facts of an offense shall be established by evidence. The facts of an offense shall not be established in the absence of evidence.
The public prosecutor shall bear the burden of proof as to the facts of the crime charged against an accused, and shall indicate the method of proof[/i]".
Those are the original words.
The burden of proof was obviously enough as you were found guilty.[/quote]
fenlander, I think the argument is that Zain wasn’t fairly tried.[/quote]
Yah I kind of agree with that actually . However, I feel his story is doubtful and far fetched and neither of them reported an accident happening in a car in which they were travelling OR driving in. The damage to the car was also extensive. I may not have reported the accident myself (if i could not remember what had happened) but I would have waited a week or so before scrapping the car (regardless of plans) to check all the papers to make sure no serious accidents had happened on the route during that time.
I agree, but is it murky by nature or design? Forget about whether he is guilty or not. Frankly to me personally it doesn’t matter a great deal. The important question for me as a ‘foriegner’ living in this country is did he get a fair trial or was he treated differently based on being a foriegner. Some of the allegations he’s raised as to how his case was handled are worrisome to me if they are true. However, even if they are true is that something extra ordinary based on who he is or is it just another day in the operations of a faulty system?
I hear lots of stuff about how deficient the system is even to locals. I would say the thesis that foreigners are treated worse needs to be proven by comparison, not just by examples of foreigners treated poorly by the system. It needs to be established that their treatment is inferior.
I had a long discussion about this with my wife. I find that very often when these things issues are discussed, the impression is created that we hate Taiwan, but it is not true. We want to try to change the country sufficiently that if something happens to us or our children, that the law will be fair.
If my son is innocent, then he has to have trust in the system. If we don’t, vigilante actions could follow in situations where we feel we have been wronged. We don’t hate Taiwan, we are fearful of being treated badly by an inferior system whether we are local or foreign residents.
If it was my son that was run over, I am not sure I would be happy with a two year sentence as a parent. Would you?
In Mr Dean’s case it is not surprising the media went mad. He showed no remorse or emotion at all. He was at the very least a passenger in a car that killed another human being AND he failed to report an accident in which someone died. What if that car had been scrapped? Bang goes the evidence. Lets not forget there is a person here who has lost a husband and more who have lost a father because of drunks playing with the lives of others on a Taipei road.
At the very least Dean’s car was written off and you didn’t report the accident because of your business interests. Sterotype of a greedy businessman lived up to in full.
I hear lots of stuff about how deficient the system is even to locals. I would say the thesis that foreigners are treated worse needs to be proven by comparison, not just by examples of foreigners treated poorly by the system. It needs to be established that their treatment is inferior.[/quote]
From my understanding of the situation the treatment of foreigners is not really inferior, it is the system that is at fault. Take this case for reference (this is not very exceptional either).
taipeitimes.net/News/taiwan/ … 2003503216 ‘Former Aboriginal decathlete Ku Chin-shui (古金水) was declared not guilty on Thursday by the Hualien branch of the Taiwan High Court in his [color=#BF0000]fifth retrial [/color]in connection with an explosion and fire aboard a Uni Air flight in 1999. The verdict may not be appealed’
It seems that sometimes the government (the prosecutor’s office) has a target to proscecute and by God are they going to see this guy go to jail. The main difference seems to be that if prosecution fails the government can retry the case (there has been some amendments recently to put limits on this, see below)!
[i]'Article Eight of the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act (刑事妥速審判法) stipulates that cases maintaining a verdict of not guilty which last through a second retrial, or that have been tried and given two or more not guilty verdicts before a retrial by a court of the same jurisdictional level, or cases where a criminal sentence is not handed down six years from the date of the initial trial and the Supreme Court has asked for a retrial three times, may not be appealed.
Ku Chin-shui said last year that the case had taken an enormous toll on his life.[/i]’
’
[quote=“Zain Dean”]
You make good points. I’m sorry if I can’t answer all of your points, the fact is that I’ve been through hell. I was given no evidence nor information why I was denied basic rights. You ask for links, I don’t have them. I have put it on my list of things to do; to list and link what the basic rights of man are in Taiwan.
You talk of transponder records - it took 7 months before the courts gave us a one off look at the footage used in evidence. Until now I still haven’t received the copy of the evidence against me. What could I do, shout about it?
This is not Europe. This is is Asia. I am an ‘alien’ and so are you. It took me a long time to figure this out. You should too, if you are so inclined.
Peace.[/quote]
Maybe I’ve watched too many legal dramas on TV, but why are you doing all the legwork and not your lawyer? They refuse to give you a copy of the evidence? Yes, I’d shout about it and more. I know our quasi-embassies can’t do much when we get in trouble with the authorities here, but I think you should reach out to them if this trial was really as much of a farce as you make it seem. Or get someone in the UK to report about how screwed up the Taiwan justice system is…the bigwigs here seem to be very sensitive to international criticism.
[quote]Or get someone in the UK to report about how screwed up the Taiwan justice system is…the bigwigs here seem to be very sensitive to international criticism.[/quote]No one will stand for someone who was passed out drunk, or not passed out drunk, in a car during a fatal hit and run. They may actually make an example out of him to promote hiring a taxi when going out on a binge, but that’s about all you can hope for.
Here are four U. S. examples of drunk passengers being charged with or convicted of driving while intoxicated, because they took control of the vehicle during its operation:
[quote]WILLISTON, Vt. (AP) — Vermont State Police say two Barre women who got into an argument in a moving car that rolled over on Instate 89 in Williston could both face driving under the influence charges.
Police say 22-year-old Caryn Pletzer was driving south at about 3:30 a.m. Saturday when she and passenger, 25-year-old Ashley Griffin, began arguing.
In an Ohio case, the trial court held as matter of law that where an intoxicated passenger had reached over and grabbed the steering wheel of the vehicle, that there was no probable cause to arrest her. However, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, citing Ohio’s statutory definition of “operate,” which is “to cause or have caused movement of a vehicle,” and holding that in grabbing the steering wheel, defendant had caused movement of the vehicle and had therefore operated it. –State v. Wallace (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (PDF document will pop up if link is clicked.)
Robintaiwan, so are you saying that the whole concept of “designated driver” that is used extensively in the UK is completely invalid? That no, you CANNOT employ a sober person to drive your car? That’s an interesting idea. Complete rubbish, of course, but interesting.
I still don’t understand why the gangsters/cops would choose to screw over an innocent Mr. Dean to save a guilty KTV employee. Of the two, whom would you assume to the one with the guanxi and the resources to put up a fight?
Mr. Dean should consider doing a polygraph and make the results public (assuming it proves he was/is telling the truth, of course). It may not be admissible in a court of law, but it would help in the court of public opinion.
[quote=“formosaobama”]I still don’t understand why the gangsters/cops would choose to screw over an innocent Mr. Dean to save a guilty KTV employee. Of the two, whom would you assume to the one with the guanxi and the resources to put up a fight?
[/quote]
I would say offhand that it would be the one who pays the cops off each month.
okay eh eh eh
Yah he was in a car accident and drunk. He did not report it. Fact 1 guilty without question.
He attempted to scrap a car that he knew had been involved in an accident. Fact 2. guilty without question.
He claimed he was not driving and could not remember the accident despite being able to drive home in a badly damaged car. Fact 3. The court did not believe his story.
He decided not to report the accident because he did not want to damage his business relationship with another business man Fact 4 guilty as admitted by the accused.
He drove his car home when still drunk Fact 5 He is guilty of drunk driving while being so intoxicated he could not even remember he had been in an accident.
[quote=“formosaobama”]I still don’t understand why the gangsters/cops would choose to screw over an innocent Mr. Dean to save a guilty KTV employee. Of the two, whom would you assume to the one with the guanxi and the resources to put up a fight?
Mr. Dean should consider doing a polygraph and make the results public (assuming it proves he was/is telling the truth, of course). It may not be admissible in a court of law, but it would help in the court of public opinion.[/quote]
[quote=“sandman”]Robintaiwan, so are you saying that the whole concept of “designated driver” that is used extensively in the UK is completely invalid? That no, you CANNOT employ a sober person to drive your car? That’s an interesting idea. Complete rubbish, of course, but interesting.[/quote]No, sandman. That’s not what I’m saying. Having a designated driver is fine. What isn’t fine is fleeing the scene of an accident. And if someone is injured in the accident, fleeing the scene is a felony. In such cases, the passengers will be scrutinized as to their involvement in the crime and may be prosecuted accordingly.
