Think about the victims
I would like to respond to Michael Tsai’s letter (Letters, March 14, page 8) on the death penalty. It is filled with fallacious arguments and incredible insensitivity.
First, as is customary, he assures us that he empathizes “with families who have suffered great pain,” as if a few empty words are at all helpful to families devastated and destroyed by murderers. Does he think his empty words are any consolation? Instead of concentrating his letter on the victims, he spends most of his time trying to protect killers from rightful execution resulting from a sentence passed by the judicial system, as well as ignoring the wishes of the people of Taiwan, who support capital punishment in overwhelming numbers (over 70 percent). But then, democracy and the rule of law can be so inconvenient when they don’t match Tsai’s ideas.
Tsai trots out the old argument about “an eye for an eye” taken from the Old Testament, which he clearly does not understand. The phrase which he considers to be so inhumane is actually meant to protect people. It does not mean that if someone takes your eye, he must lose an eye, as Tsai erroneously believes. It means that an eye is the limit; you cannot take someone’s life for an eye. It was a very humane concept to prevent people from escalating punishment in revenge. He continues: “It goes without saying that life is precious.” Well, why does he say it then?
He focuses on the life of criminals, murderers who didn’t share Tsai’s enlightened viewpoint. They took life and thereby forfeited their sacred right to life. The people of Taiwan understand this very clearly and do not need the writer to civilize them.
Tsai then asks if executing murderers will “truly heal wounds?” This is a specious question. One could equally ask: Should families who have lost a loved one to a cold-blooded killer have to live with the knowledge that the guilty killer is alive while the innocent victim is dead? Tsai raises another misleading argument that execution is not a deterrent. Could that be because so few murderers are executed and that it takes so long that the public forgets? He prefers “solitary confinement for life” as a “humane” alternative. Tsai is incredibly naive to believe this.
If he knew anything about his humane solution, he would never have offered it. Several years ago, prisoners in Italy serving life sentences pleaded to be executed, as they considered their endless incarceration to be too inhumane. Do the hardworking taxpayers of Taiwan want to support killers for a lifetime in prison with all its attendant costs? I think not.
CHAIM MELAMED
Pingtung
Taiwan bound by law
Thank you for your editorial on the dangers of executing the innocent (“Opinions differ on death penalty,” March 15, page 8).
Hsu Wun-pin (許文彬) seems to think that as long as the death penalty system ensures no innocent people will be executed, nobody will object to the existence of the penalty itself. This is wrong.
Many people, including myself and members of the Alliance to End the Death Penalty, do object to the idea of the state using death as a means of punishment. The goal of perfecting the system to avoid all mistakes is a path many US states have taken, resulting in the costs of capital punishment cases far exceeding the cost of lifetime imprisonment. Yet, even with all these expensive legal safeguards, human beings, including judges, may err.
Second, in defense of former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), it should be noted that her position has been public knowledge since she was first appointed. The president and the premier certainly knew her opinion and implicitly supported her. However, there was an immediate threat to their political careers after Wang made her comments and so they turned their backs on her. She deserves to be congratulated for her courage and clear principles.
EDMUND RYDEN
Sinjhuang
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS