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:[4] "We must have clear, credible evidence to convict someone. If uncertain, punishment cannot be imposed."[5] At the time, Kanakorn was also livestreaming his speech on Facebook via his phone.

"I'm not saying these five defendants are innocent; they may have actually committed crimes, but the judicial process must be transparent and honest. Punishing the wrong people only makes them scapegoats." "In my view, a verdict requires very sufficient evidence. If the wrong person is convicted, it will harm that person and their entire family. So if it's truly not yet certain, don't jump to conclusions. I'm not guaranteeing these five people did nothing wrong; they may have done wrong, but it still needs time to review..." As soon as he finished speaking, Kanakorn ended the livestream, recited the legal oath, turned, and saluted the king's portrait. According to eyewitnesses, after Kanakorn recited the oath before the portrait of the late King Bhumibol, he pulled out a gun and shot himself in the chest. Kanakorn was rushed to the hospital for treatment. Currently, the five defendants remain in custody, and the Yala provincial judicial department 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 demanded that he convict two of the defendants even without concrete evidence. A statement written by Kanakorn before the trial was also exposed online, stating, "At this moment, judges across the country are being treated the same as me. If I cannot fulfill my oath of office, I would rather die than live without honor." Cases of judicial injustice complaints are rare in Thailand. It remains to be seen whether Kanakorn will regain consciousness to further understand the reasons for his suicide.

It is understood that two hours before the verdict, the judge posted a strange message on his social media account, roughly saying: "In a moment, I will livestream the verdict for the people to know. I might give them a very light sentence, but if I don't follow orders, I could be fired and not receive 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 at that time..."

Netizens have commented: "Don't fool anyone. It's obvious to everyone that this judge faced immense pressure after acquitting the defendants, and he couldn't get past his own conscience, so he chose this path. He's a true hero..."

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

Why did Kanakorn commit suicide? There are now two voices in Thai public opinion. One views him as a great hero, especially the two sentences emphasized in his 25-page personal statement revealing his feelings: "Leave the judgment to the judge, return justice to the people," which have gone viral online. His noble character of defying power, sacrificing himself to uphold truth, and exposing corruption is admired by the world.

Another voice sounds somewhat harsh. Some prominent Thai figures, by analyzing Kanakorn's personal social media profiles and the doubts surrounding his suicide case, believe that Kanakorn did not genuinely commit suicide but had political motives, and argue that "such a person should have been removed from the judiciary long ago... Thank this 'fake suicide' for revealing Kanakorn's true colors." (Reprinted 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 eliminated to ensure judges' impartial trials?

　　Western philosopher Francis Bacon pointed out: "One unjust judgment brings more evil than ten crimes. For crime is like a violation of the law—polluting the water, while an unjust judgment destroys the law—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 are judges always asking how much agency fees lawyers have collected?#

A while ago, I saw several lawyers online saying that judges always ask how much agency fees they have collected for the cases they handle.

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 in the face of public opinion?

How judicial trials should respond to public opinion is not a simple question. Whether it's the "Kunshan Counterattack Case" or the "Sun Xiaoguo Case," it was the persistent questioning by public opinion that drove the exposure of truth and upheld judicial justice. Without the public's online opinions, many cases might have remained unresolved.

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.Was it public opinion that prevailed, or was it justice that prevailed?

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.