Two high-profile murders that took place in November 1996 remain unsolved to this day: The shooting of eight people, including then-Taoyuan County commissioner Liu Pang-yu (劉邦友), and the murder of women’s rights campaigner Peng Wan-ru (彭婉如).
The cases have reached their 20-year statute of limitations — the time limit for bringing indictments — meaning that charges can no longer be brought. This calls for a discussion as to whether the statute of limitations should exist.
If the state keeps delaying the exercise of its power of prosecution, material evidence related to a case might be lost and witnesses’ memories would gradually fade. Even if the authorities eventually want to bring the case to trial, these factors might cause procedural obstacles.
Statutes of limitations are therefore necessary to prevent inertia in state prosecution and press the state to make active use of its prosecutorial power.
According to Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code, a statute of limitation of 30 years applies to any offense that carries a maximum principal punishment of 10 years or more, or life imprisonment or the death penalty — such as murder. It is assumed that if offenders avoid arrest for longer than the statute of limitation, they are sure to endure some degree of mental and physical suffering from such a long time on the run, which in itself is a type of punishment.
The problem is that this relatively long time limit only came into force on July 1, 2006. Article 8-1 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code stipulates that when the time limit for prosecution spans the periods governed by the old and new versions of this legal provision, the provision most favorable to the offender shall apply.
This means that the old version of Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code, under which the maximum statute of limitations was 20 years, still applies even with regard to murder and other serious crimes such as the Liu and Peng cases. It is doubtful whether such a time period will have any punitive effect on the offenders, who remain out of the reach of the law.
Furthermore, when prosecutions run into obstacles, sometimes it is not because insufficient evidence was collected following the crime, but because it was not possible to make a precise identification using the forensic techniques that were available at the time. In such cases, it might be necessary to wait for scientific advances to clarify the facts.
DNA testing is the most obvious example. In such cases, statutes of limitations become the greatest impediments to discovering the truth, since they prevent new forensic techniques from being put to use.
Other nations have instituted legal provisions to deal with the problems that arise from statutes of limitations.
Section 3281 of the US code states that there is no time limit for bringing an indictment for any offense that is punishable by death. Japan amended its Civil Procedure Law in April 2010, abolishing the statute of limitations for murder and other serious crimes.
Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court stipulates that no statute of limitations applies with regard to crimes against humanity.
All these provisions can serve as references for Taiwan.
Until the law is amended, jurists must also reconsider the question of whether a statute of limitations should apply when police and prosecutors reopen investigations into old or cold cases.
A statute of limitations should definitely not be allowed to act as a shelter for criminals on the run.
Wu Ching-chin is chair of the Aletheia University Department of Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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