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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS