The grounds given for arguments against the death penalty involve blurring the distinction between “retribution” and “revenge.” However, retribution is not supposed to be collective revenge. Rather, it is a means for society to solemnly declare its condemnation of a crime and to impose a proportional responsibility on the criminal. The words of Immanuel Kant — “whoever has committed murder, must die” — are representative of retributivist thought in the Enlightenment.
Kant asserted that life is irreplaceable and that in the scales of justice a life could be balanced only with another life. The notion that the penalty imposed must be proportional to the crime is the essence of Enlightenment retributivist thought and a mainstay of the criminal penalty system. When people call for harsher penalties as a solution in troubled times, it is a product of a distortion of deterrence theory, not of the Enlightenment retributivist view.
Human dignity arises from people’s freedom to overcome environmental restrictions and comply with moral principles. Precisely because human dignity arises from this freedom, accepting the just deserts demanded by moral principles is the last chance for a murderer to prove the dignity of life. There are in this world certain lofty values that transcend that of life, and justice is one such value. To allow one’s belief in justice to waver and think that life itself is the ultimate source of value and cannot be taken away under any circumstances actually detracts from the dignity of life. It is a world view that seems noble at first sight but actually is illusory.
Nevertheless, we must be extremely cautious. We may have faith in justice, but we should not make the mistake of thinking that worldly government authorities can assume the place of God and administer justice in an all-knowing and all-powerful way, and on that basis allow vengeance to run amok. The justice that worldly authorities seek is limited, and so is their ability to ascertain the truth.
It is, therefore, possible that they may put someone to death in error. More seriously still, governments may be corrupt and they may kill people indiscriminately. In view of the limited nature of justice, the utmost caution must be exercised in executing the death penalty, and multiple safeguards must be in place to cut down to near zero the possibility of wrongful execution. A trial is not only concerned with revealing the truth about a crime. When determining the penalty, moral outrage must not be allowed to cloud our understanding of and pity for the criminal.
In its judgment in the case of Gregg v Georgia in 1976, the US Supreme Court found the state of Georgia’s death penalty statute to be constitutional. The court’s reasoning was that Georgia had, through reforms to its criminal justice system, greatly improved its capital punishment procedures that had previously been arbitrary and capricious.
Georgia had separated the process of finding a defendant guilty or not guilty from that of sentencing. In the sentencing stage, only with the unanimous agreement of a jury and where there was at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, and where guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, could a death sentence be imposed. Georgia’s reforms later served as the blueprint for reform in the two-thirds of US states that retained the death penalty.
I can appreciate that the movement to abolish capital punishment in Taiwan gains strength from a reaction against indiscriminate killings under authoritarian rule in the past. During the 20th century, Europe, which is at the head of a global trend toward abolishing capital punishment, endured two world wars, the collapse of democracy and the Nazi Holocaust. Therefore, collective memory of corrupted states causes people there to be rather pessimistic about the ability of even democratic governments to uphold “limited justice.” That is understandable.
However, I do not think this means one should reject at a stroke the possibility of all democratic governments pursuing “limited justice.” Advanced democracies that retain capital punishment, such as the US and Japan, have tried hard to accomplish precisely this. To completely deny the possibility of ensuring “limited justice” makes it impossible for us to bring together all the forces in society that long for justice and have them work in unison to improve the system. Instead, we find ourselves bogged down in endless controversy.
If it is applied only to criminals who have committed heinous murders, capital punishment is in itself morally permissible. Whether Taiwan’s existing system is fit for the task of upholding justice is, however, another question. A principle of justice is that it is better to let a guilty person go than to kill an innocent. I have grave doubts about the ability of a criminal justice system that is incapable even of satisfactorily handling the Sijhih Trio case to bear the moral responsibility that comes with carrying out the death penalty.
For that reason, I call for legislation to institute a moratorium on executions and lay out a timetable for judicial reform. Widespread reforms of the system for examining the trial and execution of capital cases are called for.
Only when all death row prisoners’ cases have been reinvestigated under a new and improved procedure can all doubts about the crimes be removed. Only then can executions be resumed, and only in a very small number of cases involving murderers whose crimes are an affront to humanity.
Hsu Chia-shin is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers