Public opinion is a factor selectively ignored or drawn upon by policymakers presenting their case, and the death penalty is no exception. In eight years in office, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) failed to carry out one of its professed goals: to abolish capital punishment. As it left office with the death penalty intact, the administration said its hands were tied because a majority of the public believed the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to violent crime.
The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) looks set to follow suit. The public can expect the Cabinet to cite opinion polls when it suits the administration and to turn a deaf ear on issues that do not serve its interests. When it comes to the death penalty, however, the new administration is already echoing the DPP.
Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) lost no time after the inauguration in promising to consider abolishing the death penalty. In the same breath, however, she warned that she had no clue how to go about achieving this goal, as it would run counter to public opinion. Almost 80 percent of the public supports capital punishment, Wang said, a figure also cited by the DPP.
Yet neither the DPP nor the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has shown much interest in propagating the fact that around 50 countries have abolished capital punishment over the past two decades — reasons that could shift public opinion. Today almost 140 countries have ceased to employ the death penalty, leaving Taiwan among a shrinking minority.
Studies have found no evidence that the threat of execution prevents violent crimes such as murder, nor have they found that these crimes multiply when the death penalty is removed. Capital punishment can therefore only serve two purposes: to assure the public that this “effective” deterrent exists (although it is not effective) and to fill a need for retribution proportional to the crime committed.
But modern justice systems have long since abandoned the “eye for an eye” philosophy as inadequate, inappropriate and inhumane. Thus, a rapist is not sentenced to rape. Furthermore, as the death penalty is irreversible, it should not be handed down by an imperfect judiciary. And with doubt-riddled trials like the Hsichih Trio’s, claiming the courts are infallible would be laughable.
The government must therefore make it clear to the public: Even one innocent person executed is far too high a price for what essentially boils down to revenge.
Taiwan also enforces the death penalty for nonviolent crimes such as selling drugs, which can only be described as draconian.
Under the DPP, the use of capital punishment decreased considerably. Although 29 people await execution, Taiwan has not carried out any executions since 2006 — nor does the public seem disturbed by that development. By Wang’s own admission, support for the death penalty falls to 40 percent if the public is assured of complementary measures, such as regulations on parole for violent criminals.
It would seem, then, not so daunting a task after all to present an alternative to the death penalty that both the public and government find fair. It is time for Taiwan’s leaders to stop serving up excuses and set the ball in motion.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS