Taipei Times: Your dissertation at Waseda University was about abolishing the death penalty. Why did you choose the topic and what did you find?
Cheng Chung-mo (
I began reading a large volume of literature on the topic not long after I went to Japan. And the more I read, the more I found [the topic] appealing because it is one that goes far beyond law. Having done the research, I have the confidence that I know more about the issue than others in the legal community do.
When working on the more than 700-page dissertation, what concerned me was not only why the death penalty is abolished or why it is retained, but more importantly what the convicts can do to compensate relatives of the victims.
Execution would end the offender's life in a matter of seconds, while leaving the victim's [family] uncompensated. It makes more sense to me that a system is created to have the offenders work and use part of the money they earn to compensate the victims for the rest of their life.
TT: Are you an abolitionist and why?
Cheng: Among other things, I oppose the death penalty because it has been most widely used for the purpose of politically-motivated suppression. And in the case of the US, racial discrimination and economic disparities have proved to be major flaws that make the death penalty unjust.
The failure of scientific research to prove the deterrence, incapacitation and retribution arguments adds support to my opposition to the death penalty. Also, I must say, judges are also human and make mistakes, too. Thus miscarriages of justice seem unavoidable.
Another reason ... is that I think no one wants to be an executioner.
From my point of view, if killing is wrong and prohibited, why is it that some people are authorized by the state to kill, and what's the legitimacy of the authorization?
TT: Isn't one answer that the state executes serious offenders to protect them from hurting the public and to maintain social order?
Cheng: I don't agree with that. The reason people [live together in] a state or a society is that they hope they can live in an orderly society and pursue their own well-being. In 1938, Ernst Forsthoff, a renowned German scholar of public law, proposed the idea that the government is a "provider," which provides its people as much as it can.
He also said the government has to respect the dignity of life, safeguard living conditions and elevate the quality of life. And if it carried out these duties to the fullest, I doubt anyone would commit crimes.
People commit crimes mostly because of economic, political and cultural uncertainty. Of course the individual is responsible for what he or she did, but most important is that the state is also to blame for not having provided enough.
In my view, all killing is wrong. But we need to think about why a man would become a killer. People called Chen Chin-hsing (
There must be many reasons, and the state is definitely responsible.
TT: As a researcher, you opposed the death penalty and backed up your stance with various arguments, but how did you deal with the death penalty when you were minister of justice?
RSS