Wu Shu-chen's Prison Term Should Balance Justice and Humanitarianism

Wu Shu-chen's Prison Term Should Balance Justice and Humanitarianism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 18, 2011

Today, Wu Shu-chen will report to the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office. She will then be sent to the Taichung Prison Annex Hospital for testing and evaluation. The results will determine whether she will be put behind bars. Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu said every step along the way would accord with the professional judgment of physicians. The DPP has argued that Wu Shu-cheng is unable to care for herself. Therefore they oppose having her serve. Green Camp elected representatives and local community leaders plan to stage protests.

Compared to Chen Shui-bian, Wu Shu-cheng's physical disability does make her prison term a more prickly issue. Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's sentences were handed down at the same time, last November. Chen Shui-bian has already been in prison two and half months. Wu Shu-cheng spent New Years, Chinese New Years, and the Lantern Festival at home. Only now has she been referred to the hospital for evaluation. As we can see, the Ministry of Justice has given her special treatment due to humanitarian considerations. Yet the Green Camp persists in its attacks. They have accused the Ma administration of "using the system to kill people." On the other hand, many others are waiting to see whether the Ma government will buckle under pressure, and whether it will use Wu Shu-chen's health as an excuse to let her escape justice.

Justice, humanitarianism, and politics are engaged in a three way tug of war. In fact, the problem is not confined to the Ma administration. It also reflects the DPP's inability to examine its own conscience when confronted by Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's corruption. Democracy on Taiwan has a malignant tumor. Normally speaking, anyone who commited the same offense as Wu Shu-chen, would be forced to serve a prison sentence. The prison system has long established evaluation criteria. The system has been in existence for many years. It has never run into any real problems. Now, in order to pander to Wu Shu-chen, the DPP is demanding that the system change its standards, It is demanding that the government custom tailor her prison sentence, in accorance with her individual requirements. This is hardly consistent with the concept of equal justice under the law.

Medical and humanitarian factors must be considered. Whether Wu Shu-chen is fit to serve time, requires careful medical evaluation. It also requires adequate prison facilities. If anything untoward were to happen in prison, the Ma administration would bear the brunt of any responsibility. Meanwhile, the DPP refuses to wait for the hospital assessment. It repeatedly asserts that Wu Shu-chen is "unfit to serve a prison term." It repeatedly accuses the Ma government of "politics before the law." In fact, the purpose of the DPP's moves are precisely that -- "politics before the law." In fact, the purpose of the DPP's moves is to exert political pressure on the administration of justice.

The political atmosphere is grave. The Ministry of Justice may stick to its self-proclaimed "non-intervention, non-interference, non-guidance" and "three noes." But PTC hospital physicians must conduct an assessment. Can they truly not be affected, psychologically and emotionally? Mobs outside the hospital raged. Can the physicians truly maintain their professionalism and objectivity? Can their assessment truly remain free from political influence? Suppose they make a clearly worded assessment? Regardless of whether Wu Shu-chen may or may not be required to serve time behind bars, can they truly avoid harassment by either Blue or Green camp supporters?

According to records, last year the PTC ruled that four convicts need not serve time. The Ministry of Justice has had over 500 such cases over the years. DPP legislators "reason" that so many "ordinary people" have not be required to serve time. Therefore why should Wu Shu-cheng? Their "reasoning" contains three fallacies. One. It reveals imperial arrogance. If the prince and the pauper commit the same crime, they must be treated the same under the law, Wu Shu-cheng must undergo the same testing and treatment as other prisoners. She cannot claim exemption on the basis of her status as "former first lady." Two. It inverts cause and effect. The other prisoners were assessed by physicians. Only then were they exempted, on medical grounds. They were not exempted before hand, before medical assessment. Many of them merely received temporary reprieves. Once their physical condition improved, they were forced to serve out their sentences. Three. It makes hypocritical appeals to "humanitarianism." Today's prisons are filled with sick people. Many convicts enter prison while sick. The DPP has never cared a whit for any of them. It blindly supports Wu Shu-cheng alone. What is the DPP's selective humanitarianism, except flagrant hypocrisy?

Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's corruption scandals came to light. Political turmoil followed. The Red Shirts took to the streets and demanded justice. Now, Chen Shui-bian has finally entered prison. Democracy and justice on Taiwan have take a giant leap forward. But many more of Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's corruption cases have yet to be tried. Whether Wu Shu-cheng must serve out her sentence, how the money she and Ah-Bian stole will be recovered, are all pieces of this unfinished puzzle. We hope that the Blue and Green camps will both take a step back. We hope they will give the physicians a chance to assess Wu Shu-Cheng's physical condition according to professional medical standards. These physicians must ignore Wu Shu-chen's status as "former first lady." They must treat her as an ordinary person. Ultimately, they must explain their decision to the public on the basis of scientific data. Their decision must reflect the demands of justice and humanitarianism, and not political pressure. Only such an approach can win the public trust.

In short, the assessment of Wu Shu-chen's health must be based on justice and humanitarianism. If political pressures are involved, the result will be a lie. Something untoward could happen to Wu Shu-chen while she serves out her prison sentence. She could then use her medical assessment as a shield, as an excuse to refuse to appear in court, or to do whatever she wants. This is not something the public would like to see. The physicians performing the assessment must exercise extreme caution.

政治迴避：以司法及人道權衡吳淑珍服刑
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.02.18 03:07 am

吳淑珍今天將到高雄地檢署報到，再送至台中監獄附設培德醫院檢驗評估，決定她是否入監服刑。法務部長曾勇夫說，一切尊重醫師的專業判斷；民進黨則以吳淑珍不能自理生活，反對她入監服刑，綠營民代和本土社團皆發動抗議。

比起陳水扁，吳淑珍因身體病殘，其服刑問題確實棘手許多。扁珍在去年十一月間同時判刑確定，陳水扁已經入獄兩個半月，吳淑珍卻在家度過了新年、春節和元宵，至今才要交由醫院進行評估。可見，法務部對她的情況已作了特殊的人情考量。但綠營仍然撻伐，指控馬政府利用「制度殺人」；在另一方面，也有許多民眾在等著看馬政府是否會承受不住壓力，讓吳淑珍以病體當藉口逍遙法外。

陷入這種司法、人道和政治的三角拔河，其實不只是馬政府的難題，也說明民進黨無能反省扁珍貪腐案的困境，儼然成為台灣民主政治的一個惡性腫瘤。依正常的程序，任何人犯了吳淑珍的罪行，是否需入監服刑，獄政體系原有一套既定的評估標準；這套系統行之有年，並未出現什麼適用上的困難。如今，為了吳淑珍，民進黨卻要求系統改變標準，要求政府為個人量身打造服刑條件，恐不符合司法正義的平等精神。

從醫療及人道的立場看，吳淑珍的身體狀況是否適宜入監服刑，除需要在醫學上作仔細評估，也需要考慮獄中的照護條件。若在獄中有任何三長兩短，那將是馬政府難以承受的責任。然而，民進黨不待醫院的評估，即再三宣稱吳淑珍的身體「不適合服刑」，指控馬政府的處理「政治性大過法律性」。這種操作，其實才是政治目的大過司法目的，是政治對司法行政的侵壓。

在如此嚴峻的政治氛圍中，就算法務部能保持其自稱的「不介入、不干預、不指導」的「三不」原則，但被指派進行這次評估的培德醫院醫師，其心理和情緒能不受影響嗎？當院外傳來聲援者的叫罵，他們如何保持專業與平常心，使評估不受政治牽引？甚至，一旦他們作出明確評估，不管吳淑珍入監或不必入監，他們能免於被藍綠陣營支持者窮追猛打嗎？

根據紀錄，去年培德曾裁定四人不必入監服刑，而法務部歷年來這類案件共有五百多例。民進黨立委因此質疑：那麼多「平民百姓」都不必服刑，為何偏偏不放過吳淑珍？這項指控犯了三項謬誤：一是「身分論」的傲慢：王子犯法與庶民同罪，吳淑珍需接受和其他犯人相同的檢驗待遇，不能以「前總統夫人」身分豁免；二是「倒果為因」：這些人都經醫師評估，而非事前要求免刑，且許多人只是暫時免服，近七成在身體狀況改善後仍服完刑期；三是虛假的「人道關懷」：如今病監人滿為患，多少人抱病入獄，民進黨從未過問，獨對吳淑珍一味力挺，這種因人而異的人道關懷豈不虛偽？

從扁珍爆發貪瀆，歷經政治風暴、紅衫軍示威和司法纏鬥，走到今天陳水扁入獄服刑，台灣的民主和司法都往前邁進了一大步。然而，扁珍貪瀆仍有許多相關案件尚未審完，包括吳淑珍服刑與否、贓款如何追回，都是這個滔天弊案未完成的拼圖。我們希望，藍綠陣營今天都能後退一步，讓培德醫院醫師有足夠的空間，根據專業完成吳淑珍的健康評估；醫師們則必須忘卻吳淑珍「前第一夫人」的身分，將她當成一個普通人處理，最後並用科學數據向國人清楚說明評估的理由。人道自在司法體制中，而非在政治壓力下；如此才是可昭公信的作法。

簡言之，對吳淑珍的評估，是要在司法的天平上添加人道的籌碼來衡量，若加上政治之手操作，就會失真。不論是吳淑珍因服刑發生意外，或是她日後拿此評估當護身符拒不出庭或為所欲為，都是社會不樂見的景象，醫師們請謹慎以對！