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
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS