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
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
The election campaign for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chair is heating up, with only 10 days left before party members cast their ballots on Oct. 18. The campaign has revealed potential strengths for the party going into important elections next year and in 2028, particularly the desire among leading candidates to deepen cooperation with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). However, it has also exposed the party’s persistent weaknesses, especially in formulating a policy on cross-strait relations that can appeal to the majority of Taiwanese. Six candidates are registered: former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), 73; former legislator Cheng Li-wun
RSS