Eighteen days after his death sentence was finalized, Taipei MRT killer Cheng Chieh (鄭捷) was executed, sparking public debate. In particular, since Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) is about to step down, it was debated whether she should be the one to approve the execution. That aside, the Ministry of Justice’s habit of approving executions in response to a public outcry in the past few years highlights the difficulty of deciding whether to carry out executions.
Article 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), says that after a death sentence is finalized, it should be approved by the justice minister and carried out within three days. However, the article does not specify when the minister must approve the verdict after it has been submitted to the ministry. For this reason, a justice minister’s decision to defer the approval is tantamount to using administrative powers to block a judicial ruling, which violates the separation of powers stipulated in the Constitution.
Since the death sentence is irreversible, the absence of rules stipulating a deadline for the approval and carrying out of capital punishment in effect gives the justice minister a chance to carefully consider whether the verdict is correct, thus allowing for the possibility of a retrial or an extraordinary appeal, which could prevent wrongful executions, such as that of air force serviceman Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) in 1997.
Capital punishment can only be suspended if, as Article 435 of the code stipulates, the court rules for a retrial, or if, as per the proviso in Article 461, prosecutors discover that the evidence supports a retrial or an extraordinary appeal and asks the ministry for a retrial. In this regard, the justice minister’s right to approve an execution does not give the minister the right to review a death sentence.
However, since the law does not specify a deadline for the minister’s approval of a death sentence, whether to carry out the sentence and how long that decision takes is at the minister’s discretion. As there is pressure on Taiwan from Amnesty International to abolish capital punishment, the ministry does not approve an execution immediately after a death sentence is issued.
Since 2010, when capital punishment was resumed, 33 people have been executed, with 40 waiting on death row.
As 70 to 80 percent of Taiwanese are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment, there is pressure to carry out death sentences. This has forced the ministry to promulgate regulations for reviewing death sentences, which state that the execution of someone who has not filed for a pardon, constitutional interpretation, extraordinary appeal or retrial, and is of sound mind and has committed a cruel crime should be a priority. Not only does this provision lack a legal basis, it is also dependent on the arbitrary decision of the person in charge. Death row inmates have practically become tools for the government to divert public attention or reduce outrage.
Former South Korean president Kim Young-sam, the nation’s first truly democratically elected president, executed 57 people during his five years in office, overtaking his predecessor Roh Tae-woo, a former army general, who executed 39 people during his presidency.
In December 1997, three months before his tenure ended, Kim had 23 death row inmates executed on the grounds that he wanted to relieve pressure on his successor, Kim Dae-jung, who once was on death row himself. No death sentences have been carried out in South Korea since.
If the future justice minister, when faced with a difficult situation uses the death penalty as an way to make problems go away, it could fracture society.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
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
RSS