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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry