Executions not the answer
It seems almost inevitable that the cries for maintaining the death penalty in Taiwan will become even louder after the senseless and brutal killing of four people and the wounding of 23 people on Taipei’s MRT system (“Public reels from attacker’s brutality,” May 23, page 1).
It is common sense that the attacker, once convicted, should never be released again for reasons of public safety.
However, I continue to oppose the use of the death penalty for reasons which I have stated before (“Abolishing executions safeguards our rights,” April 9, 2010, page 8; “Misguided priorities,” May 21, 2010, page 8; “Justice done by execution?” March 9, 2011, page 8; “Real deal behind abolition,” March 17, 2011, page 8).
Therefore, I want to congratulate the Taipei Times for its very outspoken criticism of the latest rounds of executions (Editorial, May 4, page 8).
The voices of foreigners can only add a little weight to this discussion.
However, once the Taiwanese and media speak up, there is hope that eventually Taiwan will abolish this medieval, anachronistic violation of each person’s basic human right, a human right enshrined in two UN covenants signed, but continually ignored, by the Taiwanese government.
The international reputation of Taiwan can only suffer as long as Taiwan does not join the internationally growing trend of abolition.
Given the recent events, I also want to add another important consideration.
It seems clear to me that the death penalty, or any other severe punishment, would never stop a crazy individual from committing atrocities.
Rather, they may even find further encouragement in what they might consider a “heroic” death.
Therefore, the possibility of punishment would almost certainly not avert such crimes, unless you want to lock up any person acting in a suspicious manner even before they have committed any crimes.
However, the possibility of punishment would certainly deter people who kill other people through their reckless, but yet unpunished behavior.
For example, we all know that reckless or drunk driving can kill people, or that certain types of environmental pollution kill people.
However, these crimes usually go unpunished or are punished with a slap on the wrist, some negligible punishment which does nothing to stop the negligent and dangerous behavior.
So why are we so willing to give the ultimate punishment to people where the deterrent effect is almost zero, while we are so unwilling to severely punish people who kill, after all, not just four, but thousands of people each year?
Surely, punishing these kinds of behavior would save many innocent lives.
This is one of the many contradictions in the way people are punished in our legal systems which I simply cannot understand.
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a
There have been media reports that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) plans to hold military exercises in August to simulate seizing the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands, 東沙群島) in the South China Sea. In the past, only Coast Guard Administration (CGA) personnel have been stationed there, but the Ministry of National Defense has dispatched the Republic of China Marine Corps to the islands, nominally for “ex-situ training,” to prevent a Chinese attack under the guise of military drills. The move is only a temporary measure and not sufficiently proactive. Instead, the government should officially declare sovereignty over the islands and station troops
Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) is to be Taiwan’s next representative to the US. Hsiao is well versed in international affairs and Taiwan-US relations. In her days as a student in the US, she was a member of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and served as chief executive of the Democratic Progressive Party’s US mission. She is familiar with a broad spectrum of Taiwanese affairs in the US. FAPA hopes that Hsiao, after taking up her new post, would continue to deepen and normalize relations between Taiwan and the US, and that she would try to get a free-trade agreement