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 (
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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US