So, the infamous "Hwakang Wolf" isn't going to attend National Taiwan University (NTU) this fall after all. After months of media ruckus, this outcome brings a sigh of relief to many among the general public and perhaps even the "Wolf" himself. Whether they want to admit it or not, people are not ready to accept him back into society. The public will never be ready until a few fundamental questions are answered.
One argument raised by experts against placing the "Wolf" on parole is the short prison term he has served thus far. He received a 16-year sentence for committing 19 rapes and attempting 11 more. He has served six years or just one-third of his sentence, qualifying him for parole. As he has served under four months so far for each rape committed, these experts argue it would be wrong to place him on parole now. The argument presumes that the purpose of criminal punishment is retribution. Under this theory, the "Wolf" has simply not "paid his due" for his sins.
In contrast, other experts support placing the "Wolf" on parole, arguing that he has been successfully "rehabilitated." Some even appear to think that getting into NTU is in itself sufficient proof of rehabilitation.
Society needs to decide whether the purpose of punishing a criminal is for retribution or rehabilitation. If it is the former, then whether an inmate has successfully applied to enter NTU or been rehabilitated in the eyes of the judiciary, should not play any role in parole determination. In fact, parole should not be granted at all, as it allows wrongdoers to avoid rightful punishment. And if that is the case, society has no need to ever "get ready" to accept former rapists on parole.
If rehabilitation is the goal, then how much of the sentence the inmate has actually served shouldn't play any role in parole determination.
Perhaps, the goal of criminal punishment is a hybrid of both retribution and rehabilitation. Then how much weight should be given to each factor? Or does retribution play a particularly important role only when it comes to rapists?
This newspaper would rather believe that rehabilitation is at least part of the goal for criminal punishment. That being the case, the question becomes: Under what circumstances is this society ready to accept a "rehabilitated" former rapist on parole?
First, the general public needs to be educated about the value of rehabilitating former sexual offenders. Next, the public's fear of ex-offenders needs to be relieved. That can be accomplished only when they have learned to trust the ability of our criminal justice system to truly reform offenders, and, even more importantly, do a good job in monitoring and supervising former sex offenders on parole.
For example, it was revealed the "Wolf" received only about a year of psychological counseling in prison. Perhaps, the Ministry Of Justice could impose a longer period of mandatory psychological counseling for sexual offenders for whom parole is an option.
Upon their parole, ex-offenders could be required to undergo regular mandatory counseling as well.
In a bid to boost his chance of parole and entry to NTU, the "Wolf" went as far as to volunteer to undergo drug therapy to reduce his libido. Fortunately, the idea was not even considered by the authorities.
Such an idea is based upon the erroneous presumption that rape is prompted by the physical urge for sex. Studies have indicated that rape is often committed not to satisfy sexual urges, but rather to enjoy a sense of domination over the victim. Others suggest the root cause of rape is pure rage and a desire to inflict pain. Further chemical treatment, even if voluntarily accepted, brings up many complicated and sensitive human rights issues.
Perhaps it is better that the "Wolf" stays in jail for now. An unpredictable public, their emotions whipped up by the media frenzy over his possible parole, would likely make every day of his freedom a living hell.
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
When the towers of Wang Fuk Court turned into a seven-building inferno on Wednesday last week, killing 128 people, including a firefighter, Hong Kong officials promised investigations, pledged to review regulations and within hours issued a plan to replace bamboo scaffolding with steel. It sounded decisive. It was not. The gestures are about political optics, not accountability. The tragedy was not caused by bamboo or by outdated laws. Flame-retardant netting is already required. Under Hong Kong’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme — which requires buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspection every decade and compulsory repairs — the framework for
President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced a plan to invest an additional NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) in military spending to procure advanced defense systems over the next eight years, and outlined two major plans and concrete steps to defend democratic Taiwan in the face of China’s intensifying threat. While Lai’s plans for boosting the country’s national security have been praised by many US lawmakers, former defense officials, academics and the American Institute in Taiwan, the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, they were not equally welcomed by all Taiwanese, particularly among the opposition parties. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman
President William Lai’s (賴清德) historic announcement on Wednesday, Nov. 26, of a supplemental defense budget valued in excess of US$40 billion is a testament to the seriousness with which Taiwan is responding to the relentless expansionist ambitions of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the Chinese Communist Party and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Lai is responding to the threat posed to Taiwan sovereignty along with US President Donald Trump’s insistence that American partners in good standing must take on more responsibility for their own defense. The supplemental defense budget will be broken into three main parts. The first and largest piece
RSS