According to documents released by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office, a two-year-old boy starved to death due to the negligence of his mother, who is mentally challenged. The boy’s biological father had abandoned him, his mother’s cohabitant was indifferent to him and he was physically abused by his uncle.
It is beyond imagination that such a tragedy would occur in Taiwan, a nation known for its people’s warmth and where life is pretty good.
The Criminal Code should provide protection for powerless and vulnerable children: Article 271 addresses homicide, Article 276 addresses negligent homicide and Article 294 addresses abandonment.
To convict a person of these offenses requires an objective element, which involves a child’s death or their life being placed in danger, and a subjective element, which requires that the perpetrator is proved to have intentionally caused the death or danger. This threshold is far too high for ensuring the proper protection of children, who rely completely on adults for their care and nurturing.
Even Article 286, which addresses mistreating a minor, only prohibits actions that impair a child’s mental or physical health or development, but does not include abandonment, which would put a child’s basic life needs in danger.
By contrast, Section 170 of the German penal code, which addresses the breach of maintenance obligation, stipulates: “Whoever evades a statutory maintenance obligation so that the necessities of life of the person entitled to maintenance are endangered or would be endangered without the assistance of others incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.”
Under German law, a parent may be punished for endangering a child’s life necessities long before they reach the point where they would have placed the child’s life in danger, let alone causing a child’s death.
In practice, due to the lack of clear legislation, Taiwanese courts have long misused abandonment, which essentially aims to protect the life of “helpless people,” to punish actors who fail to exercise their caregiving obligation.
While this might be jurisprudentially inappropriate, it sheds light on the fact that there is a high degree of agreement in society that people who fail to fulfill the obligation to support, raise or protect should be penalized.
However, to comply with the proportionality principle, courts should refrain from using the Criminal Code to convict people whose failure to meet that obligation is not severe enough to jeopardize the basic daily needs of people who are entitled to care.
Lawmakers should learn from Germany and clearly define breaches of the obligation to support, raise or protect, and emphasize the hazardous consequences. That would clearly distinguish breaches of the obligation to support, raise or protect from abandonment, and allow both offenses to exercise their proper functions.
It would also prevent courts from casually citing abandonment and giving disproportionate punishment to someone who fails to meet the obligation to support, raise or protect, but does not cause injury.
The German civil code also targets biological fathers unwilling to accept the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood. Section 1615-l2 stipulates that the father must within a certain period take responsibility for supporting the mother by paying her child support, so that she will not find herself in dire straits due to pregnancy, delivery or raising a child alone, which could further jeopardize the child’s interests.
Instead of functioning as a morality clause prohibiting men from being unfaithful, the law must protect innocent children. In combination with the law against breaches of the obligation to support, raise or protect, a father evading that obligation and bringing further harm to the mother’s basic needs for living will be punishable by the Criminal Code.
The Civil Code and the Criminal Code lack counterparts to the German civil code. It is worth questioning whether the absence of relevant laws has led many pregnant women, worried that they cannot afford to raise a child, to resort to an abortion or to abandon their children in parks.
A state bears a fundamental obligation to protect every child still in the womb or born to the world. Before the protection mechanism is perfected, the government should establish care centers that receive and care for abandoned children to prevent helpless mothers in distress from undertaking abortions or abandoning newborns.
Hsu Tze-tien is a law professor at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under