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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers