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.
Bruno Walther
Taipei
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
Since leaving office last year, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been journeying across continents. Her ability to connect with international audiences and foster goodwill toward her country continues to enhance understanding of Taiwan. It is possible because she can now walk through doors in Europe that are closed to President William Lai (賴清德). Tsai last week gave a speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference, where, standing in front of civil society leaders, human rights advocates and political and business figures, she highlighted Taiwan’s indispensable global role and shared its experience as a model for democratic resilience against cognitive warfare and
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
The diplomatic spat between China and Japan over comments Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made on Nov. 7 continues to worsen. Beijing is angry about Takaichi’s remarks that military force used against Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” necessitating the involvement of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Rather than trying to reduce tensions, Beijing is looking to leverage the situation to its advantage in action and rhetoric. On Saturday last week, four armed China Coast Guard vessels sailed around the Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known to Japan as the Senkakus. On Friday, in what
RSS