Nearly 10,000 inmates were released last Monday when a sentence commutation statute came into effect. Because many of them were robbers and drug users with a high recidivism rate, the decision has aroused serious concern from the public over the impact on public safety. Now that the commutation has been implemented, the government must take certain measures to prevent repercussions.
The government has taken a few steps so far. For example, the Ministry of Justice sent a list to the National Police Agency and local governments naming inmates it deemed at a high risk of recidivism and inmates with infectious diseases. It also implemented a number of tracking, counseling and supervision measures in a bid to prevent any negative impact the commutation might have on public safety. But we must understand that relying only on the police and health agencies is not enough. Responsibility for public order and health must be shared.
The thinking behind such measures is that released inmates are highly prone to repeating their crimes. This delivers a message that they are bad people who are incapable of change. The government is designing its prevention and surveillance programs for released inmates based on the theory that human nature is evil, an approach widely approved of in society. But I believe that crime is a question of "nurture," not "nature." Our environment is the most important factor in determining whether or not we will commit a crime. If we release inmates, but then toss them right back into the same environment that pushed them toward crime in the first place, recidivism should be expected.
We have to rethink our approach and assume that human nature is ultimately good. If we assume that all of the people released under the commutation are fundamentally good and do not want to commit crime -- and assume that they committed crimes in the first place because of environmental adversity, such as a lack of employment or suffering discrimination -- we can start building constructive policies that will remedy the underlying problems plaguing our society.
The government can work to improve family, community, workplace and other social factors. For example, concrete measures should include helping released inmates to readjust to society by encouraging their families to accept them, assisting communities to create a system of support and providing incentives for companies to employ former inmates. All of these actions could help change stereotypes of former inmates.
In other words, through incentives, the government should encourage improvement in the environment. The only way to prevent negative effects following this commutation is to provide people with crucial aid.
As for the planning, formation and implementation of such policies, the government is responsible. Even if manpower and legal limitations restrict its capacity to act, it can at least help former inmates by funding nongovernmental organizations. For example, many religious groups have the manpower necessary to help.
If we help former inmates, they will not commit crimes again.
Working to prevent recidivism in this way is also a way to cut down on police and prison costs. It is cheaper and better to spend money on making people's lives better than on keeping them in jail. We shouldn't just think about how to control former inmates to prevent them from committing crimes again. Rather, we should provide opportunities for former inmates.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor at the Department of Political Science at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS