KMT and DPP Candidates Clash Over Defense Ethics for Felons

Taiwanese political campaigns often reach a fever pitch on the eve of voting, with various camps launching offensives and counter-offensives regarding the past experiences and professional backgrounds of candidates. Kuomintang (KMT) Legislators Wang Hung-wei and Lin Pei-hsiung held a press conference today, publicly accusing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Yilan County magistracy candidate Lin Kuo-chang of having represented defendants involved in serious felonies such as sexual assault and fraud while practicing as a lawyer, calling into question his past image as a "public interest lawyer" and his integrity. The KMT legislators pointed out that Lin Kuo-chang had fought for reduced sentences or acquittals for these criminal suspects in court, questioning how such actions could be reconciled with victims and the general public, especially at a time when fraud is rampant, making it appear particularly ironic. This clash over professional ethics in the legal field and political suitability quickly sparked discussions in the political arena.

Faced with the strong questioning from the KMT legislators, Lin Kuo-chang's campaign team immediately issued a stern refutation, slamming the opposing camp for maliciously "demonizing" normal professional legal practices for the sake of electoral interests. The campaign team pointed out that in Taiwan's society governed by the rule of law, anyone, regardless of the crime of which they are suspected, enjoys the right to legal representation before a judicial verdict is finalized, which is a basic human right and right of litigation guaranteed by the Constitution. A lawyer accepting a commission to appear in court for a defense does not mean they endorse criminal behavior; rather, it is to uphold due legal process and ensure fairness in trials. The team emphasized that conflating a lawyer's duty to practice law in accordance with the law with criminal acts themselves is not only ignorance of the judicial system, but also a severe blow to democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights.

The core of this controversy actually touches upon a classic debate that has long existed in Taiwan's legal community and political arena, namely the tension between a lawyer's vocational duty and social perception. In legal practice, the role of criminal defense lawyers is often misunderstood as "getting bad guys off the hook," but from the perspective of a modern state governed by the rule of law, the existence of defense counsel is to prevent the overextension of state power and ensure that the evidence presented by prosecutorial and police authorities complies with statutory procedures. When the general public deeply abhors sexual assault and fraud crimes, politicians often exploit this sentiment to attach negative labels to lawyers who defend defendants. However, the legal community generally believes that if even a lawyer's conscientious right to defense is subject to political liquidation, it will undermine the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice defense line.

Viewed from the macro perspective of the Yilan County magistracy race, this offensive and defensive battle reflects the strategic application of the blue and green camps in local elections. The KMT chose to cut through the candidate's professional career, attempting to shape a negative image of Lin Kuo-chang as "knowing the law and manipulating it" or "acting as an accomplice to evildoers," thereby shaking the professional and public interest image he has established at the grassroots level, specifically conducting a precise strike targeting Yilan voters' high sensitivity to public safety and fraud issues. In contrast, Lin Kuo-chang's team attempted to elevate the battlefield to the level of a state governed by the rule of law, emphasizing the values of democratic constitutionalism and human rights protection in an attempt to neutralize the opponent's smearing and characterize it as a mudslinging tactic driven by the opponent's tight race. Both sides maintained their respective stances in the public opinion arena and refused to yield.

The ultimate impact of this war of words ignited by the legislators' press conference still lies in how voters view the social role of lawyers and the integrity standards of politicians. On one hand, the hatred of victims' families and the general public toward sexual assault and fraud is real, and any professional record associated with them could become a fatal wound in the election. On the other hand, the core value of a state governed by the rule of law lies in the presumption of innocence and procedural justice; if the necessity of the defense system is denied due to political competition, it may pose a long-term negative example to Taiwan's democracy and rule of law. As the campaign continues to advance, whether this issue will ferment further depends on the subsequent discursive capabilities of both camps and the voters' discerning wisdom regarding judicial ethics versus political rhetoric.

(Source of Facts: Central News Agency)