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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS