A Study on the Legal System and Investigations into Drug-related Crimes

• Main Authors: Tzu-Jung Lin, 林姿蓉
• Other Authors: Wei-Zhi Wu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/54507611163213451944

碩士 === 國立雲林科技大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 97 === In recent years, news reports to do with the drug usage of celebrities and students on campus and the manufacturing of drugs in factories have flooded the media. This worrying state of affairs may put the health of the general public at risk. The actions taken against drug users in Taiwan are observation and rehabilitation as according to criminal codes; as for manufacturers and dealers, a more aggressive method is used to put a stop to their actions. On February 8th, 2002, the first article of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to state that district attorneys have the responsibility to report and provide evidence pertaining to the criminal acts of the defense. To wit, the district attorney has the responsibility of providing proof and evidence against the accused. Thus, if the evidence at hand is not enough to prove active criminal offense, or if it is not enough for a conviction to be made, then the accused would be proclaimed innocent of all charges. Present court proceedings of drug-related crimes are mostly focused on drug dealings, such as the number of transactions, drug types, and the monetary exchanges made. Hence, if the accused were to not be forthcoming with information, this could prove to be an investigative loophole. Most charged with drug-related accusations would then depend on the inconsistencies of statements to shift the focus of allegations. During interrogations from district attorneys or judicial police officers regarding the details of how deals are made, “confession of drug dealership by the accused is not evidence of guilt in and of itself”; “transcriptions of telephone conversations as the main evidence of a drug deal in process is not enough to cause reasonable doubt”; “statements do not confirm the number or existence of multiple dealings”; “hearsay is not evidence that the accused has exchanged drugs for other material goods”; and “seizure of bags, syringes and tubes is not proof of the amount of drugs in convenient possession and is not of absolute relevance to the sale or usage of drugs…without other evidence to claim otherwise” are all examples of the relation of evidence to criminal facts. Once in court, all evidence and statements must be questioned and investigated according to judiciary proceedings. This paper explores the investigation procedures related to evidence and the rulings made by judges of public prosecutions through theory and research into investigations as well as the use of high-tech equipment to aid evidence collection and interrogation techniques. In addition, ways to aid investigations in drug-related crimes (usage, selling, transference, transporting and manufacturing of) and proceedings to stop drugs from circulating are also discussed so that investigations may become even more refined and provide better evidence to back up the facts of criminal acts in courts of law to enforce the rights of corporal punishment.