Justice done by execution?
Given the execution of five people in Taiwan on Friday, further to my article in the Taipei Times (“Abolishing executions safeguards our rights,” April 9, 2010, page 8), I must reiterate my complete opposition to, and disgust with, the continuation of the death penalty in Taiwan.
From the outset, I must clarify that the people executed most likely all committed heinous crimes and deserve to be punished accordingly, which means being locked away for life. However, the death penalty is not an issue of punishment, but an issue of human rights, as I and many others have clearly argued before.
First, there is always the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, as the recent case of the wrongful conviction of Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) proves beyond a doubt (“MND apologizes for wrongful execution,” Jan. 31, page 1). Because the death penalty is the one punishment that can never be reversed, it is always unjust — because courts, no matter how impartial, are inherently incapable of avoiding errors.
Second, internationally recognized human rights [trials] have beyond any doubt ruled that the death penalty is “cruel, inhuman or -degrading -treatment or punishment,” which violates an individual’s human rights.
Third, as I have argued before, there needs to be a final safeguard so that governments can never use the death penalty for their political interests. For these reasons, there is a strong international trend toward abolishing the death penalty. Apparently, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has not yet caught up with history.
With these executions, the Ma administration again proves that it does not understand the first thing about internationally recognized human rights.
For all of its pretty words about upholding human rights, when it comes to hard decisions, the administration apparently has no qualms about throwing human rights straight out the window to score a few cheap votes in upcoming elections.
Given the administration’s track record on human rights, economic equality and environmental protection, one can conclude that economic growth and prosperity for the richest few are its only real concerns.
While I would like to see an outcry from the expat community in Taiwan about these violations of basic human rights, it is only Taiwanese voters who can ultimately punish the administration for its one-sided decisions.
One would also hope that the Democratic Progressive Party finally makes up its mind and unequivocally promises to once and for all banish the death penalty from Taiwan’s law books if it should win the next national elections.
BRUNO WALTHER
Taipei
Execution is no deterrent
My father happens to be a retired psychiatrist who worked in Quebec’s top maximum security prison (Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Prison) once a week for more than 20 years. For years, especially because three of his brothers were also psychiatrists and yearly New Year festivities took place at our home, we, the children, were raised amid many arguments in favor of or against capital punishment, and about the nature of the mental afflictions and social conditions that lead to crime.
My father, who counseled the worst criminals, believes that neither the petty nor the most serious offenders necessarily act rationally and that for them, “finding a way to get away with it” far outweighs consideration of the potential punishment, as stated in your editorial (“Tar and feathers on Ma for killings,” March 8, page 8). The nature of the offenders varies greatly, of course, as do the conditions that led them to do what they did.
When I took some psychology classes in college, as part of my studies in public health, I spent a lot of time looking at studies on capital punishment from all over the Western world.
After the 1960s and 1970s, very few studies have found that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to crime. This largely is why the UN, many countries and dozens of states in the US have acted against it.
This is also why local NGOs here have been fighting so hard against it, sometimes with my limited participation.
As my good father once said, there is no moral argument for capital punishment. Most leading religions of the world say the same thing: You shall not kill.
Whether the killer kills (or whatever crime is committed), or we kill the killers, there is no moral, statistical or judicial validity in saying that capital punishment deters crime.
Taiwan, under Ma the stray horse, is taking a huge step backward with all these recent executions, and the many more to come according to the taste of Ma’s judicial officers.
BORIS VOYER
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS