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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Last week, Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) unveiled the location of Nvidia’s new Taipei headquarters and announced plans to build the world’s first large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) supercomputer in Taiwan. In Taipei, Huang’s announcement was welcomed as a milestone for Taiwan’s tech industry. However, beneath the excitement lies a significant question: Can Taiwan’s electricity infrastructure, especially its renewable energy supply, keep up with growing demand from AI chipmaking? Despite its leadership in digital hardware, Taiwan lags behind in renewable energy adoption. Moreover, the electricity grid is already experiencing supply shortages. As Taiwan’s role in AI manufacturing expands, it is critical that
RSS