Even before assuming office as minister of justice, lawyer Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) is already facing a dilemma: Should capital punishment be abolished?
Wang has long devoted herself to human-rights issues. She made a deep impression on me by choosing a tough road when dealing with such issues as the 921 Earthquake reconstruction project and Taiwan’s comfort women.
On the issue of the death penalty, she is willing to face and recognize her human-rights values and say that she opposes capital punishment. This not surprising at all, but she will still be facing pressure from all sides.
The biggest pressure will be the concern of the public: Without capital punishment, will crime rates increase and what should we say to future victims?
However, abolishing capital punishment does not mean discharging prisoners, but rather that we want strict punishment of criminals.
Many culprits do not fear death, but how about life imprisonment? Would 30-year, 40-year or even 50-year sentences be more frightening than two bullets? This is the way criminals should face their misdeeds.
Moreover, wouldn’t it be better compensation if criminals were given proper labor assignments in prison and their earnings were returned to society or victims of their crimes?
A judicial system is not perfect and the dead cannot be brought back to life. In recent years, many shocking cases of injustice in the US and Europe have been uncovered thanks to DNA technology, so we cannot overlook the possibility that the wrong person could be executed.
I understand why the family of a crime victim would oppose abolishing capital punishment. I sympathize with their pain and frustration, but are executions the best and only way to help?
For most families, a comprehensive protection system for victims might be more important than capital punishment. Our government, however has done very little to explore this alternative.
Should capital punishment be abolished? Wang said she had to consider all opinions before reaching a decision.
Abolishing the death penalty is not as simple matter, for the reasons stated above, and it will require careful consideration. For the past eight years, the government has said it would abolish capital punishment and made some headway, but because of a lack of education and information, most people still don’t understand the policy proposal.
Perhaps a key task for the incoming minister of justice would be to launch an educational effort and open a dialogue with the public on these issues.
Amnesty International reported last year that 135 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, while only 65 countries still have it. Of those, only 24 countries actually carry out executions.
Even the number of executions in China, which annually tops the list of countries using the death penalty, declined to 470 last year, compared with 1,010 executions in 2006.
The UN also passed a resolution on Dec. 28 last year demanding the worldwide abolition of the death penalty in the hope that countries that haven’t abolished it will issue a temporary moratorium while debating the matter.
Taiwan still has the death penalty on the books, but it has not been carried out for two years. But what is next?
Hopefully Taiwan will follow the global trend and stop implementing the death penalty, conduct an overall review and launch public education and dialogue to face the nation’s capital punishment system.
Lin Hsin-yi is the executive officer of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty.
Translated by Ted Yang
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
Chung Yuan ChristiaN University is clearly in bed with the People’s Republic of China. This can be the only explanation why the school’s authorities have done their utmost to shield a student, who lodged a complaint against an associate professor, and then used thuggish tactics to compel the teacher to issue two separate apologies to China. The original complaint, filed by an unnamed Chinese student, was for remarks by associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) during a class on the origin of COVID-19. A second complaint was filed by the same student after Chao, during an apology, stated that he was a
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her inaugural address on May 20 firmly said: “We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo.” The Chinese government was not too happy, and later that day, an opinion piece on the Web site of China’s state broadcaster China Central Television said: “While Tsai’s first inaugural address four years ago was read by Beijing as an ‘unfinished answer sheet,’ the one she presented this time was even more below-par.” Speaking to the China Review News Agency, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies vice president
During my twenty-two years in the US Senate, I became a student of Taiwan and its history. I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy, and have made at least 25 trips to Taiwan and have been invited as an observer to two of the nation’s presidential elections. Taiwan’s continuous economic miracle has seen the nation transition from a mixed agricultural-industrial society at the end of Japan’s 50 years of jurisdiction to today’s economic powerhouse, unmatched by most nations of the world. Just as outstanding has been Taiwan’s decades of resistance and