Print

Mail

wiki links

Shackling of prisoners a shameful practice

On June 12, the International Federation for Human Rights held a press conference titled, "Taiwan heaps cruelty on the death sentence" and released a report titled The Death Penalty in Taiwan: Towards Abolition? In the report, the federation made 46 detailed suggestions to the government, and touched on an issue that has shocked human-rights organizations -- namely, that Taiwanese death row inmates are shackled for extended periods of time.

Not only is such treatment unwarranted, it clearly violates the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The Ministry of Justice quickly responded to the federation's press conference, posting a press release on their Web site (www.moj.gov.tw) that day. The release states that physical restraints are used to protect those prisoners who are emotionally unstable, prone to flight or suicidal. Restraints are not used to punish the prisoners; hence, their usage does not violate UN regulations, it said.

The ministry also stated that the use of physical restraints must be approved by a court or prosecutor, and a monthly report on the inmate's condition must be submitted to the High Court Prose-cutors' Office.

With the exception of the ministry's speed in addressing the allegations, its response left little else that was praiseworthy.

First, the second item under Article 5 of the Detention Act (羈押法) states that, "If there is no sufficient fact to determine that a defendant has supposition to violence, escape or suicide, a guard is not allowed to use precautionary appliances to constrain the defendant's body." This is, of course, in line with what the ministry has stated is its policy for using restraints -- that they are used to "protect" the prisoners. Article 19 of the act's bylaws states that restraints cannot be used as a form of punishment.

Naturally, detained defendants are bound to experience emotional instability from time to time, but who is the ministry kidding by keeping prisoners constantly shackled under the pretense of 24-hour, year-round emotional instability or flight risk? Instead of feeding us hollow assurances, why can't we see long-term statistics regarding the shackling of detainees?

Second, if the use of physical restraints really must be reported to and approved by a court or prosecutor, why can't such materials be released for scrutiny by non-governmental organizations to independently verify that the ministry is acting within legal limits. And is the High Court Prosecutors' Office really reviewing the monthly reports on those subject to the restraints?

Paragraph 2 of Article 19 in the bylaws to the Detention Act states that once physical restraints are used on a prisoner for a period of seven days, an application to the relevant authorities is required to continue using the restraints. Would materials pertaining to such weekly applications withstand public scrutiny?

Finally, the ministry has emphasized that not all death row inmates are shackled, contrary to what the federation suggested. But to deny that all inmates are subject to excessive use of physical restraints is an easy position to take, because there would only have to be one unshackled death row inmate to make this position technically true.

In practice, shackles usually become basically permanent once defendants have been sentenced to death.

In recent years, Taiwan's courts have approached death penalty cases more cautiously, but everyone knows that once shackles are slapped on a prisoner's legs, they stay there for years.

Countries that respect the rule of law do not oppose punishment; they oppose cruelty. Even a convicted inmate does not deserve to experience less than the minimum treatment required.

Kao Jung-chi is a member of the Judicial Reform Foundation.

Translated by Max Hirsch
This story has been viewed 1414 times.