The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office has charged Cheng Chieh (鄭捷) with four counts of murder and 22 counts of attempted murder, and requested that he be given the death penalty for a stabbing rampage on Taipei’s Mass Rapid Transit system.
Although prosecutors believe the accused does not have a mental disorder that would justify a lighter sentence, the debate surrounding this case will not disappear just because charges have been filed.
During the investigation, prosecutors requested a psychiatric assessment of Cheng to dispel public doubt.
According to these assessments, he was found not to suffer from any mental disorder affecting his ability to tell right from wrong or make him less accountable for his actions. Cheng is therefore viewed as possessing the capacity to take responsibility for the serious crimes he stands accused of, and as such there should not be too much debate on whether he should be given the death sentence.
However, attention must be paid to the fact that the psychiatric assessment was directed by prosecutors.
In addition, since the accused did not appoint a lawyer or have his forensic psychiatric evaluation questioned, and especially given that the motive for the seemingly random killings was linked to Cheng’s disputes with classmates from elementary school, it can be concluded that the assessment process was hasty.
The ruling can therefore only be viewed as preliminary and it can only be used to prove that the accused is now competent to stand trial, and that Article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) — which states: “If an accused is insane, the trial shall be suspended until he recovers” — does not apply in this case.
As Cheng was capable of understanding the ramifications of his actions and of planning the timing of his attack, the main point of contention is not whether he is capable of taking responsibility for his actions, but whether he suffers from a mental disorder and whether this means that he suffered from a decreased ability to tell right from wrong or to control his actions, which, according to Article 19 of the Criminal Code, could result in more lenient sentencing.
Even though Cheng has no record of seeking treatment for mental illness, this does not prove that he does not suffer from any mental disorder.
Furthermore, the facts — including how Cheng kept saying he had always wanted to “do something big” when asked why he committed the crime, how he had written scary stories, how he had talked about carrying out such a crime prior to committing it and how he received counseling at school — all point to sociopathic or other abnormal personality traits.
As such, when it is time to reach a verdict, the court would have to ask psychiatrists to perform another psychiatric assessment.
Also, when tests are done to determine whether Cheng suffers from a mental illness or disorder, further judgement is necessary to determine what impact such an illness or disorder had on Cheng’s actions to ascertain whether he should be held criminally responsible.
Psychiatric assessments are not the same as DNA tests, which are almost 100 percent accurate. Psychiatric assessments are dependent on the psychiatric expert performing them, and problems automatically arise when it comes to the question of how many psychiatrists judges should call on to conduct a diagnosis.
Furthermore, regardless of how many psychiatric experts are involved in a diagnosis, the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that all psychiatric experts consulted must appear in court for cross-examination, although it is difficult to know whether this means the case can be clarified or whether it provides the judge with more complete information for sentencing.
Last year, before the Criminal Code was amended, the Supreme Court, citing the fact that Taiwan has incorporated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in local legislation, overruled a decision by the Taiwan High Court citing UN decisions made in 1984 and in 2005 respectively that the death penalty should not be given or carried out on someone with a mental disorder or who is mentally challenged.
This means that even if the lower courts follow prosecutors’ wishes and sentence Cheng to death based on a lack of mental illness as stipulated in Article 19 of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court could still send the case back to the lower court as long as a forensic psychiatric evaluation or the final verdict mentions that Cheng has a mental illness or the capacity to be rehabilitated.
It is only to be expected that Cheng’s trial will lead to a dispute over whether it meets public expectations for a quick trial and sentencing and whether he should be handed the death sentence. This is why the charges raised by the prosecutors only represent the beginning and not the end of a major test for Taiwan’s criminal justice system.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated By Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry