The murder of a 10-year-old boy in Tainan who had his throat cut has again brought the death penalty debate into the spotlight. The suspect, Tseng Wen-chin (曾文欽), not only allegedly confessed to murdering the boy, his alleged rationale — that he “wouldn’t get the death sentence for taking a life or two” — has shocked society and highlighted the flaws in the nation’s approach to capital punishment.
Tseng, a 29-year-old man who had been unemployed for a long time, reportedly told police he did kill the child because he “wanted to be fed for free in prison” and felt that murder would ensure a lengthy sentence. That a young man could be driven to such desperate lengths, to be misguided enough to imagine that resorting to homicide was the answer to having no job, is discomforting enough, but this outcome, in which poverty has allegedly driven a man to commit murder, is indescribably tragic.
Tseng’s professed motive also illuminates the contradictions within the government’s policy on capital punishment. The presumption was that because of the prevailing distaste for handing down death sentences, a defendant would not be executed for taking one or two lives so therefore murder was a way to be fed and housed in jail for an extended period.
In Taiwan, the legal process in cases of capital punishment stipulates that at least three appeals must be made. The increasing importance given to human rights has seen ever-stronger calls for the abolition of the death penalty. This has made judges more cautious when delivering verdicts in such cases, and an extraordinary appeal and retrials often follow the three required appeals. Even after a final verdict is given, a Control Yuan investigation or a presidential pardon remain options to overturn the sentence. These are warranted given some of the egregious miscarriages of justice that have come to light.
The Supreme Court has sought to introduce clarity into the standards by which judges arrive at these decisions — for the sake of the judges, the defendants, the victims’ families and society as a whole.
However, the Ministry of Justice has been reluctant to carry out executions. Ever since former justice minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) resigned over her insistence on a stay of executions, the ministry has only sanctioned nine executions. There are currently 61 individuals on death row awaiting a decision. The ministry’s prevarication undermines the courts’ authority in making their final ruling.
Taiwan has made two international human rights covenants national law and respects the human right to life, but capital punishment remains part of its legal system. Judges continue to hand down death sentences in accordance with the law, but executive bodies do not carry these sentences out. Therein lies the contradiction that Tseng has purportedly sought to exploit. He discerned the flaw in the policy and this allegedly gave him a motive for murder. Now that the spirit of impartial and strict meting out of due punishment has been undermined by this contradiction, the concern is that there will be similar cases in the future.
The government must make more of an effort to support the unemployed and establish more effective social welfare mechanisms. It must also look into ways to erase the contradictions in the death penalty law.
If the government decides to move toward abolishing the death penalty, it will need to address the implications the removal of this sanction could have for society. It will need to reinforce both the law and attitudes to the sanctity of human life, and impress upon the public that a life cannot be taken away lightly. The government should also encourage the legislature to amend the clauses within the Criminal Code pertinent to capital punishment, so that the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice act in concert. Otherwise, this confusion over the most final of punishments will continue.
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