"Lex est ratio summa; Law is the perfection of reason"
Those words from Sir Edward Coke come to mind when considering the recent batch of editorials and letters to the editor regarding Taiwan's death penalty (Sept. 24, 27 and Oct 1, Page 8). "Discussions" of the death penalty here in Taiwan, as well as in the US, usually devolve into emotionalism and irrationality. Hence my use of the word "discussions" in quotation marks.
Reason, legitimate socio-political policy and a consideration of the relationship between the means and the ends quickly fall by the wayside. Sir Edward is right; law should be based on reason. The death penalty is not.
It is important to realize that the arguments in support of the death penalty are based on emotion, usually of the most primitive kind: fear, vengeance, revenge, a feeling that there are two kinds of people in the world, "us and them."
The death penalty is an issue that is long on emotionalism and short on reason. It has been my experience as both a prosecutor and defense counsel that supporters of the death penalty are often quite flippant towards it. They tend both to trivialize and sensationalize the issue.
The stock defense of death penalty advocates is to bring forth some horrible murder, some despicable murderer and then broadly and loudly proclaim: "an eye for an eye; horrible murderers deserve horrible death." Sometimes, to add emotional fuel to the flames they conjure forth some basically unrelated issue such as race or nationalism in support of the death penalty.
People who use this "line of reasoning" often have no real idea what they are talking about. They generally have never seen a murder scene, never seen an execution, never dealt face to face with crime, with crime victims or murder defendants. What they know about crime, about criminals, they get from movies, TV shows or the sound bite from the talking head on the nightly news. As my dad used to point out, movies ain't real.
I would add that the nightly news is generally not a good source of information either. The New York Times recently conducted a study of the death penalty in the US. The report has two lessons that Taiwan would do well to heed. First it supported the fact that there is absolutely no relationship between violent crime rates and the presence or absence of the death penalty.
The article (New York Times, Sept 22nd) said: " The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show."
Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by-state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty."
The paper's study also pointed out that many within the US criminal justice system, who are in a position to be able to place the death penalty in a rational context, are opposed to it. A good example is E. Michael McCann, the District Attorney for Milwaukee County, Minnesota. McCann opposes executions even after prosecuting Jeffrey L. Dahmer. Dahmer was an infamous serial killer who murdered and dismembered at least 17 boys and men, and ate flesh from at least one of his victims.
McCann was quoted in the New York Times piece as saying "To participate in the killing of another human being, it diminishes the respect for life. Period." McCann added, "Although I am a district attorney, I have a gut suspicion of the state wielding the power of the death over anybody."
I very much agree with McCann and the people of Taiwan should consider his position carefully.
Fu Jen University is to be commended on sponsoring a study on the death penalty in Taiwan along with the conference they will host on the issue next year. It is time to inject reason and facts into a debate that usually is swept away by emotion and ignorance.
Brian Kennedy is a member of the Board of Amnesty International Taiwan and of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
A recent scandal involving a high-school student from a private school in Taichung has reignited long-standing frustrations with Taiwan’s increasingly complex and high-pressure university admissions system. The student, who had successfully gained admission to several prestigious medical schools, shared their learning portfolio on social media — only for Internet sleuths to quickly uncover a falsified claim of receiving a “Best Debater” award. The fallout was swift and unforgiving. National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and Taipei Medical University revoked the student’s admission on Wednesday. One day later, Chung Shan Medical University also announced it would cancel the student’s admission. China Medical
Construction of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County’s Hengchun Township (恆春) started in 1978. It began commercial operations in 1984. Since then, it has experienced several accidents, radiation pollution and fires. It was finally decommissioned on May 17 after the operating license of its No. 2 reactor expired. However, a proposed referendum to be held on Aug. 23 on restarting the reactor is potentially bringing back those risks. Four reasons are listed for holding the referendum: First, the difficulty of meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets and the inefficiency of new energy sources such as photovoltaic and wind power. Second,
RSS