A few days ago groups opposing the abolition of capital punishment and groups advocating conditional abolition appeared at a public hearing on the status of the death penalty in Taiwan. Fortunately, the meeting was peaceful, and I have a few suggestions for pro-abolitionists.
I used to support the idea of conditional abolition, but find the ongoing dispute unacceptable because some pro-abolitionists constantly raise the issue of human rights and claim the moral high ground. In the process they demonize family members of victims and opponents of abolition by painting them as merciless monsters. If pro-abolitionists claim on the one hand that the death penalty is an expression of state violence and suppression while on the other hand take a superior attitude, use complicated language and refer to human rights to suppress dissent, then they are mere hypocrites.
Some positions and statements may be suitable for religious people, but these positions do not represent an attitude that should apply to legal professionals and academics in the legal field. These groups should propose substantive measures and evidence to prove that Taiwan must, and can, abolish all articles relevant to capital punishment from the Criminal Code. If they keep reiterating their personal beliefs they will not fulfill their responsibilities on this issue.
Taiwan could defer death sentences or institute a moratorium because there are concerns that some of the 44 convicts currently on death row have been wrongfully sentenced due to past flaws in the appeals system. However, there is no absolute relationship between this situation and questions of whether Taiwan should immediately abolish capital punishment, whether the credibility of the judicial system will improve once capital punishment has been abolished, or whether abolition is necessary to prove that we think human rights are important.
Wrongful sentencing can also occur in cases of life imprisonment or fixed-term sentences. Thus, focusing only on wrongful death sentences is yet another injustice. Pro-abolition groups also know that some African and Asian countries that have abolished capital punishment have done so not because of their advanced human rights record but because their legal systems are so poor that they fear persecution by a totalitarian state. An example of this is Hong Kong, which abolished capital punishment before its return to China.
The key to legal human rights is judicial credibility. Improving judicial credibility does not depend on all-out attacks on prosecutors and judges alone. Anyone connected to the judicial system, including lawyers and academics, must review their behavior.
Many pro-abolition groups are led by lawyers and academics. These lawyers could spend some time improving the quality and discipline of their fellow lawyers. Academics could bring more expertise to the field of legal studies and bring it in line with reality. That would raise the quality of the judiciary.
Dialogue must be based on equality. If pro-abolitionists only want to use the current dispute to sensationalize the death penalty but have no intention of actually making a substantial effort toward abolishing it, then fine, they will reach their goal. If they really want to build a common understanding for the fundamental reform of Taiwan’s judiciary and resolve the death penalty issue once and for all, then pro-abolition organizations must start reviewing their own attitudes and think about where they went wrong.
Carol Lin is an assistant professor in the graduate institute of technology law at National Chiao Tung University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) in San Francisco on Tuesday last week said if she had not met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), she would have been “just a plain” and “even negligible” KMT chairperson, bluntly signaling the role she is playing in her visit to the US — Beijing’s messenger from Taiwan. Cheng and her delegation arrived in the US on Monday last week for a two-week visit across five major cities. Her party said the group is scheduled to meet with US lawmakers, officials, policy experts and businesspeople. Before departing, Cheng said her trip
In 1935, the German Reich led by the National Socialist Party officially created the Nuremberg Race Laws, a “legal cage”, for German Jews, stripping them of citizenship, criminalizing their personal relationships, barring them from public life, and transforming them into stateless subjects and isolating them from the rest of society. Similarly, in March 2026, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) National People’s Congress adopted the “Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” law, which represents the most significant shift in Chinese domestic governance since the era of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). Ostensibly designed as domestic legislation to manage China’s 56 officially recognized ethnic groups,
RSS