While public opinion is regarded as important to the movement against the death penalty, it is a small group of judges who have the authority to decide whether or not to apply capital punishment.
One thing that worries the abolitionists is the standards the judges adopt when determining whether someone deserves a death sentence. For all the arguments the supporters and foes of capital punishment have made, moral grounds are a crucial issue.
"In determining application of laws, the judges can be very rational and professional. But when it comes to sentencing, they are no more rational than ordinary peo-ple, who often make judgments based on moral grounds," said District Court Judge Chen Chih-hsiang (
Chen, an abolitionist, said he refuses to apply capital punishment because "taking a life is no different than murder," whether it is permitted by law or not. He said, however, that many other judges support the death penalty and think they are serving a good cause when handing down a death sentence.
"The issue of life and death is rarely a concern because it's not a subject of law school education or exams. To them, murderers, drug traffickers or kidnappers alike are savage criminals and should be executed because they deserve it," Chen said.
He said he once asked a colleague why she gave a death sentenced against an abductor, who did not hurt the abducted child at all.
"She said to me: `He is so bad. He took away the kid and asked for millions in ransom. He deserves that.' Sadly, it tells the way many other judges use the death penalty too," Chen said.
For centuries, retribution and the deterrence arguments have been central to support for capital punishment. In fact, these are also major arguments held by the judges, who think death is a once-and-for-all solution.
"To protect the general public and maintain social order, and to remedy the pain and trauma relatives of the murder victim have endured, it is necessary to remove the offender from society permanently," a Taipei District Court judge reasoned in giving a death sentence to a robber and murderer.
Such is a typical reason for giving a death sentence despite the argument of the abolitionists that life incarceration can also serve the purpose to permanently remove the offenders from the society.
As a matter of fact, in cases where a sentence is reviewed by a higher court, judges' decisions at times contradict each other. For instance, in a recent kidnapping case, the Taiwan High Court reversed a district court's death sentence and put the offender in prison for life because the high court judges felt life imprisonment was sufficient for the crime, which did not involve the taking of a life. The choice between life imprisonment and the death penalty is subject to the judges' discretion.
"As I see it, the judges are no different than the executioners, except that they execute with a pen," said Lee Mao-sheng (
"They might claim to have a good reason for ordering the execution, but I believe none of them would take pride in what they have done."
"So I always think it is these judges, not the general public, who should be subjects of the campaign for abolishing capital punishment. If we're able to stop the thousands of judges from handing out death sentences, we'll have the death penalty abolished in practice," Lee said.
RSS