On Sept. 20, the Constitutional Court ruled that the death penalty is constitutional, but the scope of its application would be restricted.
In the ruling, the court said that no one should be sentenced to death or executed if they have a mental disorder or other mental issue that results in an inability to understand that they were committing a crime, an inability to defend themselves during trial or an inability to endure punishment.
Although this is in line with the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there is controversy due to fears that claiming a mental disorder could be exploited as a loophole to escape from the death penalty.
It is particularly alarming to the legal community that the exemption also applies to defendants with mental disorders during their trials.
This ruling therefore brings the issue of forensic psychiatric evaluations to the forefront. However, there are two main problems with how these evaluations are conducted.
First, evaluations carried out by different hospitals’ psychiatric medical teams might come up with different results. Consequently, appealing for re-evaluation has become a litigational opportunitty for both the prosecution and the defense, which not only wastes time and money, but also prolongs the process.
Second, fewer hospital teams are willing to take on cases for major criminal trials.
Prosecutors and judges should identify the need for forensic psychiatric evaluation as soon as possible. Forensic psychiatric evaluation is often about identifying the suspect’s mental state at the time of the crime. The longer you wait, the more difficult it is to be done properly.
In the 2019 murder of railway police officer Lee Cheng-han (李承翰), who was stabbed to death on a train at Chiayi Station by a man surnamed Cheng (鄭), the forensic psychiatric evaluation for the first hearing was conducted three months after the tragedy, which was relatively fast. However, the evaluation for the second hearing was not done until 13 month after the killing, which made the evaluation more difficult. Despite this, the judge at the second hearing decided to accept the later evaluation.
In addition to the psychiatric community’s efforts to continue improving professional training in psychiatric evaluation methods, the judicial authorities should expand the scope of inpatient evaluation and provide a sufficient supporting system that includes funding, safety and security.
Finally, the government should review the current practice in which the evaluation for major cases is conducted by a single hospital (with a team consisting of specialist doctors, psychologists, social workers). It should instead consider inviting experts to set up a forensic psychiatric evaluation committee.
Regarding the second problem, forensic psychiatric evaluation is originally a professional affirmation and social responsibility for psychiatrists. However, over the years, the psychiatric evaluation for major cases has become such a nightmare for psychiatrists that they often try to avoid it as much as possible.
In the case of the doctor who undertook the first psychiatric evaluation for the 2019 Chiayi railway police killing case, when the first-hearing judge accepted the psychiatric evaluation and issued a not-guilty verdict, the doctor was criticized by the public as much as the judge. He even faced merciless attacks when he testified in court during the first and second trials.
Due to the strategies of the prosecution and defense, the expertise of a professional witness was not respected, and the doctor was vilified and personally humiliated. Given this social stigma, who would be willing to accept responsibility for conducting a psychiatric evaluation of defendants for major cases?
The Constitutional Court’s ruling would make the evaluation of mental disorders that occur during or after the trial more demanding and more difficult in the future. This is something members of the public should bear in mind, and which the government needs to address.
Lin Jin-jia is a psychiatrist.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
In 40 years of watching politics, I have never seen anything quite like Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) breed of politician. He has a presence that commands attention, and a combination of qualities that appear to be the result of powerful political currents. What is it that makes Shen different? Throughout the past decades of local elections, I have not seen anyone seriously discuss a long-term vision for urban planning, let alone with the kind of clarity and insight that Shen possesses that compels people to keep listening. He is an exceptional storyteller, with an ability to present a vision
Taiwanese writer Chu Yu-hsun (朱宥勳) this month spoke out about the difficulties of judging literary competitions when nearly 40 percent of the novel submissions he reviews appear to be generated by artificial intelligence (AI). He said he would refuse to serve as a judge for any literary award that does not explicitly prohibit the use of AI in creative writing. The use of AI in creative and academic work has become increasingly common. My son, who attends National Chengchi University, says he is exasperated after working to complete assignments on his own, only to receive lower grades than classmates who used
China prefers to win without firing a shot in its bid to strangle Taiwan’s strategic autonomy. Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) would have approved. Its central tool at sea is the “cabbage strategy”: the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) layers fishing boats, maritime militia, coast guard cutters and warships around Taiwan’s contested waters in overlapping rings. Each layer normalizes daily coercion, narrows Taiwan’s freedom of movement and chips away at its maritime sovereignty — all while staying below the threshold of armed conflict. This is “gray zone” warfare at its most cost-effective — one of Beijing’s most promising
Freedom of expression is a precious gift from the times, civilization and history, Hong Kong writer Hon Lai-chu (韓麗珠) said on Wednesday last week when she received the Golden Tripod Award, the highest honor in Taiwan’s publishing industry, for her novel Flesh Mountain (祼山). “As a Hong Konger these days, I deeply feel that the freedom to write and publish should not be taken for granted,” she said. She said that for a reason. Hon, who rarely speaks publicly or accept interviews in Hong Kong because it could result in serious consequences, resigned from her long-running columnist post at the Chinese-language Hong
RSS