Protesting with death! Judge protests judicial interference, shoots himself in court

[2] Recently, in Yala Province, southern Thailand, a judge shot himself after acquitting a murder suspect.

[3] Kanakorn spoke after announcing the verdict:"We must have clear and credible evidence to convict someone. If there is uncertainty, no punishment can be imposed."[5] At the time, Kanakorn was also livestreaming his speech on Facebook via his phone.

"I am not saying that these five defendants are innocent. They may have indeed committed crimes, but the judicial process must be transparent and conducted with integrity. Punishing the wrong people will only turn them into scapegoats." "In my eyes, very sufficient evidence is required to render a verdict. If the wrong person is convicted, it will harm that person and his entire family. So if it is truly not yet certain, then do not draw a conclusion for now. And I have not guaranteed that these five individuals did nothing wrong. They may also have done wrong, but more time is needed for review……" As soon as he finished speaking, Kanakorn shut down the livestream, read the legal oath, turned and saluted the king’s portrait. According to eyewitnesses at the scene, after reciting the above oath in front of the portrait of the late King Bhumibol, Khanakorn pulled out a gun and shot himself in the chest. Khanakorn was rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment. At present, the five defendants are still being detained, and the judicial authorities of Yala Province will continue to investigate whether to appeal the acquittal.

According to a BBC report, it is suspected that Kanakorn was threatened by a senior judge, who insisted that two of the defendants be found guilty even without solid evidence. A statement written by Kanakorn before the court hearing also surfaced online, in which he wrote, “At this moment, judges across the country are receiving the same treatment as I am. If I cannot fulfill my oath of office, I would rather die than live without honor.” Lawsuits alleging judicial injustice are rare in Thailand, and it remains necessary to wait for Kanakorn to regain consciousness before further understanding the reasons behind the suicide.

It is understood that two hours before the verdict was announced, the judge posted a strange message on his social media account, which read something like: “In a moment I will livestream the sentencing to let the people know. I may sentence them very lightly, but if I don’t do as I am told, I could be fired and receive not a penny of my pension…… If anyone wants to help and protect my wife and daughter, you can donate and transfer money to my daughter’s bank account……

Netizens commented one after another: "Tell that to the marines. Anyone can see that the judge came under enormous pressure after acquitting the suspect, and he could not get past his own conscience, so he chose this way out. He is a true hero……"

A judge is the king of the legal world, with no superior other than the law.

Why did Kanakorn take his own life? There are now two voices in Thai public opinion. One regards him as a great hero, especially because of two lines emphasized in his 25-page personal statement expressing his innermost thoughts: “Leave judgment to the judges, return justice to the people.” These words went viral online. His noble character in defying powerful forces, proving his innocence through death, and exposing the dark truth has earned the admiration of people around the world.

But another voice sounded somewhat jarring. Some prominent Thai figures, through analyzing Khanakorn's personal social media profiles and the questionable aspects of the suicide case, believed that Khanakorn did not genuinely attempt suicide but had political motives, and argued that "such a person should have been removed from the judiciary long ago... Thanks to this 'fake suicide,' everyone can now see Khanakorn's true colors." (Translated from Tencent News)

Which view is closer to the truth is hard for outsiders to know except Kanakorn himself. However, the issues reflected by this incident are worth our serious discussion:How can interference be excluded to ensure judges' fair trials?

 The Western philosopher Bacon pointed out: “One unjust judgment does more harm than ten crimes. For a crime, though it disregards the law——is like polluting the stream, while an unjust trial destroys the law——is like polluting the source.”

Judicial rulings on disputes are the final and most authoritative. If trials are unjust, the normal channels for people to seek justice are blocked, and social fairness and justice will inevitably be lost. Therefore, trials must represent social justice and must not be interfered with by external factors.

 #Higher authority crushes fair trials#

The independence of judicial power is a necessary prerequisite for the realization of judicial fairness. The occurrence of the Kanakon incident can largely be attributed to the interference of higher authorities in its judicial power. In China, there is a supervisory relationship between higher and lower courts, where higher courts have administrative guidance and binding power over lower courts, exerting a significant influence on them. Moreover, the civil servant status of judges determines their administrative subordination, which deprives them of the independence and impartiality that judges should possess.

  To achieve judicial independence of judicial power, it is necessary to eliminate vertical administrative intervention within the court system, as well as the negative impact of personnel management and financial power in administrative management on the independence of judicial power.

 #Why do judges always inquire about how much lawyers charge in agency fees?#

Recently, I saw several lawyers online saying that judges often inquire about how much attorney fees they have collected in cases they are handling.

I believe this is not an isolated case. In China, except for the early stages of career development, judges' incomes are generally lower than those of lawyers with similar qualifications. When comparing their own salaries with generous lawyer fees, judges inevitably experience psychological imbalance, and some may even develop jealousy or rebellious feelings, leading to stricter handling of cases with higher lawyer fees. It is undoubtedly very dangerous when judges keep their eyes on lawyers' pockets. A high salary system is a fundamental guarantee for judicial fairness, integrity, and high-quality judges.

  Some say that if the salaries of public security, procuratorial, and judicial personnel were doubled, even if no other reforms were implemented, at least half of the existing judicial problems could be solved.

From a contemporary worldly perspective, a person's social dignity is deeply influenced by their economic capacity.

Therefore, a judge must be an aristocrat of society, able to pursue and uphold justice without distraction only when free from material and economic want. When the granaries are full, people follow rules of conduct; when there is enough clothing and food, they know honor and shame.

 #How can judges maintain judicial impartiality amid public opinion?#

How the judiciary should respond to public opinion is not a simple question. Whether it is the “Kunshan self-defense case” or the “Sun Xiaoguo case,” it was the sustained pressure of public opinion that drove the revelation of the truth and upheld judicial justice. Without the public opinion expressed online by the public, many cases might have remained unredressed.

A positive interaction between the judiciary and public opinion can push the judiciary toward better protection of citizens' rights and steer judicial trials toward fairness.

But often, it also raises questions.Did public opinion win, or did justice prevail?

In specific cases within judicial practice, how judges find a balance between justice and public opinion is a crucial standard for testing their professional ethics. What we hope for is that judges can maintain a rational mind amidst the uproar of public opinion.