Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: The `rice bomber' and mercy politics

"Criminal of conscience" is the ridiculous label that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇) awarded "rice bomber" Yang Ju-men (楊儒門) as he congratulated the president on "pardoning" Yang this week.

Before being elected to the legislature to say such stupid things, Hsu was a lawyer. This romantic juxtaposition of criminality and idealism, however, is better suited to a Hollywood screenplay than a legislative critique of the legal system.

In a rare example of bipartisan lawmaking, the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are in amnesty mode, voting to release prisoners serving 18 months in jail or less. It pays to remember that the amnesty was never meant to apply to prisoners across the board, as they have in the past. In a classic case of cynical populism, those on death row have not had their sentences commuted and those with heavier sentences have not been granted a reduction in jail time.

Except for the "rice bomber."

The fact that Yang was eligible for parole in October makes President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) decision to grant a pardon in this instance even more curious. Why would the president choose this of all cases to truncate a court's sentence?

Whatever partisan reasons exist for the bipartisan support that Yang's case has received in the legislature, the fact remains that the legal system has been cheapened by this instance of unreasonable intervention on the part of the executive. Indeed, the reasons offered by Chen for Yang's early release -- compassion, good behavior, time already served -- do not distinguish him from a large number of other prisoners who do not qualify for the amnesty.

Though hardly comparable to the violence witnessed in other countries, Yang's acts constituted terrorism because they potentially endangered innocent people. Some might argue he was misguided and acting for an honorable cause, but this is something that can be said about most terrorists by their supporters and does not make the act any less criminal or -- in this case -- any less punishable.

There seems to be little reason for concern that cheerleading for Yang by the president, legislators and others will inspire others to take an extremist road in defending their interests. But that does not make Yang's pardon any less irresponsible.

This is especially the case in light of genuinely unjust or unsafe sentences that have been handed down and not repealed. The malicious jailing of Atayal Aborigines in remote Hsinchu County for taking fallen wood by the roadside in a national park -- an example of ethnic punishment that cries out for a pardon if ever anything did -- and the never-ending Hsichih Trio debacle are just two examples.

We might also ask why Chen has moved to pardon a fool like Yang but failed to at least declare a moratorium on the death penalty -- a long-promised reform that was never delivered.

Yang's infantile take on the world around him is not unique in this country. Some legislators, such as one who infamously dressed as the protagonist of V For Vendetta and released apparent tear gas in the legislature, also subscribe to a mix of retribution fantasies, contempt for colleagues and self-pity.

When such people receive sympathy from the highest office and the highest lawmaking body in the land for apparently political purposes, it becomes ever more important to promote the independence and integrity of the judiciary, whatever its faults.
This story has been viewed 1758 times.