Taipei Times (TT): When did you begin to focus on this issue?
Hodgkinson: In terms of formally having some involvement with this issue, I think maybe it was sometime back in 1992 when the Center for Capital Punishment Studies was established.
PHOTO: CHIANG YING-YING, TAIPEI TIMES
TT: What inspired you to devote yourself to study this subject? What was your previous experience relating to death penalty?
Hodgkinson: I was curious that, in the UK, we do not have the death penalty; but in Texas there is a death penalty. I was curious about the way they did it in England and what they did in Texas. Why is it that there is a death penalty? I just couldn't understand why. Then I began to get more interested in this issue at a theoretical level.
I am a frequent contributor to the British and foreign press. Prior to joining the [Westminster] university in 1989, I had worked for the Inner London Probation Service for 15 years where I developed expertise on offenders serving life sentences and those with mental disorders. I'm also an adviser on the death penalty to the Council of Europe and a member of the British Foreign Secretary's Death Penalty Panel.
TT: What does the Center for Capital Punishment Studies do?
Hodgkinson: The Center for Capital Punishment Studies is under the School of Law at the university and was established in 1992. It is regularly consulted by the media and others researching the death penalty. The center also has a library specializing in death-penalty issues, which is open to all with a scholarly interest in the subject.
TT: Do you think it's fair for the public to pay taxes to keep criminals alive in prison once the death penalty is replaced by a reviewable life sentence?
Hodgkinson: I think we really cannot get rid of our responsibilities when things go wrong. When a person commits crimes that may result in the death penalty, it will be a sign that there is something wrong with the person's family, education and society. Simply executing a serial killer does not really solve the problems caused by what he did or the problems which made him do so.
In the US, a death penalty case can cost taxpayers US$2.5 million to US$3.5 million from trial to execution. For a prisoner who has been detained for 40 years, it costs approximately US$400,000. So a reviewable life sentence is actually cheaper than the death penalty.
But the real problem is way beyond that. Why do we spend so much money to execute somebody? And even when it is time to execute the criminal, does this person really regret what she or he has done? Does it work? It would not be a smart move to put somebody in an electric chair with so much money if this person never really regrets.
TT: In your research, did you find that the state encourages criminals once there is no death penalty?
Hodgkinson: I do not have evidence for this. But just restrict your thinking to the facts of murder and homicide. In regions without the death penalty, these kinds of cases are actually not as numerous as in regions with the death penalty.
In the Philippines, there are 21 offences which can end up with the death penalty. However, as far as we can see, the crime rate there did not drop a bit because of these strict laws.
TT: What problems are faced in replacing the death penalty with reviewable life sentences?
Hodgkinson: First of all, the government must carry out a well-organized plan for replacing death penalty. It doesn't have to be a reviewable life sentence, but it has to be a sufficient penalty to "educate" the criminals.
Second, how does the government persuade the public that our society is still a safe place once the death penalty is gone.
Political issues can be an obstacle to the process of making the death penalty disappear. For instance, the way they did it in South Africa was to ask the grand justices to "announce" it through its Council of the Grand Justices. Once the grand justices said that death penalty was actually against human rights and the Constitution and should be replaced, politicians could simply support it and make it happen. They did not have to worry about their own political careers being objected to by those who were pro-death penalty because it was the grand justices' interpretation of the Constitution. It was the law and they were just following it.
TT: Officials from the Ministry of Justice say that, rather than replace the death penalty, they will let judges make their own decisions and will trust their decision on whether a criminal should be sentenced to death. In other words, judges will not sentence somebody to death that easily, according to the ministry's new policy. Do you regard this as progress? What is your view toward Taiwan's efforts on this issue?
Hodgkinson: If it's a transition method, I think it's a good thing. But on the whole, I think it is very dangerous to do so because judges will have too much power if this is the case.
It's my understanding that the Ministry of Justice established the Association for Protection of Victims of Criminal Acts (
Editorial: The death penalty must be killed
Former Czech Republic-based Taiwanese researcher Cheng Yu-chin (鄭宇欽) has been sentenced to seven years in prison on espionage-related charges, China’s Ministry of State Security announced yesterday. China said Cheng was a spy for Taiwan who “masqueraded as a professor” and that he was previously an assistant to former Cabinet secretary-general Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰). President-elect William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced Cho would be his premier when Lai is inaugurated next month. Today is China’s “National Security Education Day.” The Chinese ministry yesterday released a video online showing arrests over the past 10 years of people alleged to be
THE HAWAII FACTOR: While a 1965 opinion said an attack on Hawaii would not trigger Article 5, the text of the treaty suggests the state is covered, the report says NATO could be drawn into a conflict in the Taiwan Strait if Chinese forces attacked the US mainland or Hawaii, a NATO Defense College report published on Monday says. The report, written by James Lee, an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of European and American Studies, states that under certain conditions a Taiwan contingency could trigger Article 5 of NATO, under which an attack against any member of the alliance is considered an attack against all members, necessitating a response. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty specifies that an armed attack in the territory of any member in Europe,
LIKE FAMILY: People now treat dogs and cats as family members. They receive the same medical treatments and tests as humans do, a veterinary association official said The number of pet dogs and cats in Taiwan has officially outnumbered the number of human newborns last year, data from the Ministry of Agriculture’s pet registration information system showed. As of last year, Taiwan had 94,544 registered pet dogs and 137,652 pet cats, the data showed. By contrast, 135,571 babies were born last year. Demand for medical care for pet animals has also risen. As of Feb. 29, there were 5,773 veterinarians in Taiwan, 3,993 of whom were for pet animals, statistics from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency showed. In 2022, the nation had 3,077 pediatricians. As of last
XINJIANG: Officials are conducting a report into amending an existing law or to enact a special law to prohibit goods using forced labor Taiwan is mulling an amendment prohibiting the importation of goods using forced labor, similar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) passed by the US Congress in 2021 that imposed limits on goods produced using forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region. A government official who wished to remain anonymous said yesterday that as the US customs law explicitly prohibits the importation of goods made using forced labor, in 2021 it passed the specialized UFLPA to limit the importation of cotton and other goods from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur region. Taiwan does not have the legal basis to prohibit the importation of goods