How do you put a price on a human life? You cannot. Although most people would probably agree that, recent events could force us to revisit that supposition.
Fourteen years ago, air force Private Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) was found guilty of murder by a court martial and executed. The government said the legal process was followed to the letter of the law.
However, it was subsequently revealed that mistakes had been made and the same military court determined Chiang was innocent of the crime for which he had been executed.
Again, this was all done in strict adherence to the law the government says.
Last week, the court, again in line with the law, ruled that Chiang’s mother, Wang Tsai-lien (王彩蓮), would receive more than NT$103.18 million (US$3.4 million) in compensation for the loss of her beloved son.
That is how a price is put on a human life, though I doubt anyone would be willing to sell his or her own life for that amount.
When interviewed about the proposed compensation, Wang said that no amount of money could bring back her child. It was heartrending to hear. It is a lot of money, but what does that mean?
The thing that strikes me most is that the killing of her child was done according to the law, but so was changing the verdict to “not guilty,” absolving Chiang of any wrongdoing and leading to the proposed compensation.
The presiding judge said that no further action would be brought against the officers responsible for this terrible error, including former minister of national defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏), who was chief of the Air Force Combat Command at the time, because the statute of limitations for their possible crimes had already expired. Once again this has all been done to the letter of the law.
Is there something I am missing here or is this not meant to be understandable? It seems that Taiwanese just have to grin and bear anything the government decides to do, whether it is right or wrong, as long as the government claims “it was all done to the letter of the law.”
Taiwanese do not have any choice in the matter; we must simply accept what we are given. The law now instructs that the public must foot the bill for this blood money paid to “correct” the injustice done to Chiang and his family.
The Ministry of National Defense now says that it is going to convene a panel of experts to look into how it might seek compensation from the individuals involved, which I am sure is completely in line with the law. However, will the panel conclude — as did the presiding judge — that, according to the law, these people cannot be prosecuted and that the ministry has no recourse in seeking compensation from them? It is certainly possible.
The government’s attitude seems to be that all it needs to do is hold up its hands and say: “Yes, we wrongfully executed Chiang, and that was unfortunate, but we have been as sincere as we can about it and paid out an unprecedented amount in compensation,” and that is that.
If the government fails to clarify who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice, Chiang’s life and death will have been in vain. Such clarification would include addressing the role of the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office, which initially ruled that Chen and another eight individuals could not be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had expired.
In the middle of July, the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors’ Office overruled this decision, saying that the inquiry into whether these individuals were complicit in the wrongful taking of a life and guilty of an abuse of power should continue, to ascertain whether they were guilty of complicity in an individual’s torture, detention and death.
For three months, nothing further has been heard from the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office. What has it been doing all this time? And who is going to pay the compensation? If it is split between all Taiwanese that would come to about NT$5 each. So that is fine, isn’t it? Everyone will just have to eat one less dumpling to cover the cost.
Even more important is the need to reform the system. We have to ask whether the military appeals system can be maintained in its current form, whether there is room for reform or it should be abolished in its present incarnation.
There is a need for reform in the criminal justice system to put an end to the illegal obtaining of confessions from suspects, often through the use of torture.
Would it really be so difficult to enforce a rule that stipulated a lawyer must be present during the interrogation of a suspect? Since it costs the country more than NT$100 million for every person wrongfully executed, why not use that money to make sure having a lawyer present becomes standard practice, so we can avoid a repeat of this unfortunate incident?
However, unlike the fatal error committed by the government in its handling of this case, which it has to be said was completely consistent with its legal obligations, the government does not have any legal responsibility to pursue such reforms.
Strictly speaking, of course, a government does not really have any legal obligation to reform and attempts to do so frequently run up against the lazy insistence that “everything is being done according to the law.”
It is well within the rights of those in power to act according to the law, do nothing about the situation and leave people to fend for themselves. However, with elections approaching, Taiwanese get the chance to use their vote, according to the law of course, to support those candidates who refuse to hide behind the excuse that things are being done according to the law.
This is the best way the nation could pay its respects to Chiang’s memory.
Lin Feng-jeng is a lawyer and executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Paul Cooper
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS