There are sophisticated penal theories and ethical discourses regarding the abolition of the death penalty, but in this country, at least, one wonders whether it's not even time we go into the debate about those theories and discourses because here the judiciary kills innocent people.
I'm not just saying the criminal justice system sometimes convicts and executes innocent defendants by mistake. Errors of this kind could happen in any country that has capital punishment -- a fact already horrible enough, but what is really appalling here in this democratic state is that the system appears to have no concern for these mistakes.
The Supreme Court recently rejected the extraordinary appeal for death row inmate Hsu Tzu-chiang (
The Control Yuan, after reviewing the case, listed at least five points in which the judiciary was negligent -- even unlawful in handling the Hsu case -- each single point alone should have been enough to overturn his death sentence. The State Public Prosecutor General eventually made an extraordinary appeal for Hsu, after rejecting petitions several times. But the Supreme Court's dismissal leaves these suspicious points unanswered.
Now all hope rests with Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan (
I've interviewed one of Hsu's relatives. He and the whole family were reluctant to make their campaign to save Hsu public. It was not because the distraught family didn't want to save their loved one, but because they were afraid that they might "irritate" the judicial authorities who would make the ultimate decision. When will the respected judiciary see these people's plight?
I don't know what the Su-preme Court judges discussed behind closed doors. But I expect that they should at least give convincing justification before putting someone to death.
Do they believe that it is "better to kill the innocent than let the guilty go free?" Are they resisting the Control Yuan's interference as a way of defending of the independence of the judi-ciary? Or are they reluctant to face their own errors? Anyone who has read the documents in the Hsu case cannot help having such doubts in mind.
Even those who demand the toughest retribution for criminals should reconsider supporting the abolition of the death penalty because the judiciary that holds the ultimate power over every-one's life is so dangerous and unpredictable.
Jou Ying-cheng is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS