New Power Party Executive Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) on Wednesday told a news conference that the party is seeking to reform the nation’s parole system.
The system lacks supervision and leaves too much power in the hands of the Ministry of Justice, he said, adding that it should allow prosecutors to apply directly to the courts on behalf of prisoners.
Under the current system, each prison has a parole board through which inmates apply for parole. If the board accepts an application, it is sent to the ministry for approval.
This system is vulnerable to abuse, as the fairness of different prisons’ parole boards might vary and the ministry has insufficient knowledge of inmates to make an informed evaluation. Other proposals, such as involving the public and victims in parole decisions, are similarly unlikely to have prisoners’ best interests in mind.
A better option would be to have an independent parole board with members visiting different prisons on rotation to maintain their impartiality and with members being elected from a pool of candidates with different, but relevant professional backgrounds.
The Massachusetts Parole Board in the US consists of seven members appointed to staggered five-year terms. Each member must have a background in at least one of the following: parole, probation, law, law enforcement, psychology, psychiatry, sociology or social work. Determining a defendant’s criminal liability, which is the job of judges and prosecutors, requires different knowledge and experience from determining an inmate’s psychological state and capacity for reform.
Members of the Massachusetts Parole Board are chosen by the state governor, but in Taiwan, they should be publicly elected to prevent the board from becoming a tool for political manipulation.
Ongoing disputes over the 2009 conviction and imprisonment of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the subsequent granting of his medical parole in 2015 have been major reasons behind calls for reform of the system.
Also, the “light” sentencing in May last year of Wang Ching-yu (王景玉), who was convicted for the murder of a four-year-old girl in Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖) in 2016, became a source of renewed calls for reform. The life sentence handed to Wang, who was deemed mentally unfit, would make him eligible for parole at the age of 60, thereby putting “a killing weapon back into society,” Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Lin Chun-hsien (林俊憲) said at the time.
Politicians and the public are unable to separate politics and emotions from rational decisionmaking on parole issues, and they lack the capacity to make educated assessments regarding a prisoner’s behavior and mental state. Parole decisions must therefore be made by experienced professionals.
In the US system, prisoners undergo psychological evaluations and sign contracts agreeing to certain conditions if they are released, including regular meetings with parole officers. Parolees are also required to abstain from drugs and alcohol, follow a curfew, maintain steady employment and attend counseling, and are subject to unannounced visits from parole officers. Parole can be canceled if these conditions are not met and a hearing finds the parolee to be unfit for parole.
Implementing an independent parole board in Taiwan would require amendments to Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 81, Paragraph 1 of the Prison Act (監獄行刑法), both of which stipulate that parole decisions require approval from the ministry, but the amendments would be consistent with the aims of ongoing, overall judicial reform measures.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on July 10 last year outlined the aims of the reforms, which include bolstering judicial neutrality and professionalism and making the court structure less top-heavy. Relegating parole decisions to an independent board of professionals would help achieve these aims.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath