As the nation mourns the death of an eight-year-old girl whose throat was allegedly cut by a 29-year-old man in what appears to be a random act of violence, condemnation has again arisen, not against the suspect, but rather activists against the death penalty.
However, the murder serves as proof that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to keep people from committing such cruel crimes.
Members of the public, politicians and political commentators have rushed to point the finger at the campaign against the death penalty, saying that the abolishment of capital punishment would only make the security situation worse, since people would have less to think about before committing a crime.
This theory — if it can be called that — is far from making any sense.
These people should remember that Taiwan still has the death penalty, and therefore, if capital punishment were an effective way to prevent such crimes, the tragedy that occurred yesterday would not have happened at all.
In fact, a similar argument was made in May last year, when Tunghai University student Chen Chieh (鄭捷) indiscriminately killed several people traveling on a train in Taipei’s MRT system. However, five death row inmates had been executed just one month before the attack. As such, the theory that executions prevent violence is flawed.
Since the death penalty cannot help to prevent crimes, the only purpose remaining for it to serve is revenge. Many supporters of the death penalty have argued that executions give victims’ families closure and help them “feel better,” but how can someone fully recover from the sorrow of losing a loved one? If a victim’s family and friends really do “feel better” after the perpetrator is executed, then how are they any different from killers who commit such crimes so that they can “feel better?”
One very serious risk of the death penalty is the chance of wrongfully convicting an innocent — an especially big risk in Taiwan, as most in the judiciary apparently follow the principle of “guilty until proven innocent” when dealing with serious crimes. The judiciary tends to rush investigations and hearings when such crimes are the focus of public attention.
Take, for example, the case of Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), an air force private who was convicted for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl in 1996, and executed in 1997. In 2011, Hsu Jung-chou (許榮洲), who served with Chiang, admitted to being the actual perpetrator of the crime. Yes, Chiang’s honor was finally restored, but the penalty against him is irreversible. Chiang’s story is but one of many similar cases.
If the taking of life is considered wrong, why is it acceptable for the government to kill someone? With capital punishment, there is always the possibility of wrongfully executing an innocent, and there is always the possibility of that the government will abuse its power.
Those in favor of capital punishment should keep in mind that abolishing the death penalty does not mean that perpetrators will be spared their legal responsibilities and punishment. Instead, by keeping them alive and imprisoned, they might be able to make positive contributions to society to make up for the mistakes they have made.
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing