Except for extreme circumstances such as self-defense, the killing of a person is punishable by the law. However, arguing that the law should require a life for a life in the case of murder requires convoluted reasoning.
The nation should not show the same disregard for human life as murderers do and should instead give consideration to alternative punishment. The scope of punishment should be restricted to protect human rights that are enshrined in the Constitution.
Two constitutional interpretations were recently requested by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, but both were rejected by the Council of Grand Justices. One of the reasons given was that constitutional interpretations Nos.194, 263 and 476 have addressed similar issues, and thus the court said there was no need for a new one.
It is, however, a matter of debate whether these interpretations fully deal with the essence of the controversy over the death penalty and whether another interpretation is needed.
From a constitutional perspective, the key element deciding whether to maintain or abolish the death penalty is the question of whether or not capital punishment violates fundamental human dignity.
Criminal law should prohibit any brutal, inhumane or degrading punishment. The question of whether the death penalty constitutes such inhumane punishment and is a violation of human dignity -- and even whether human dignity should be discussed in the case of violent criminals -- are issues that should be addressed in constitutional interpretations.
If it is found that the death penalty does violate human dignity, then the next step should examine whether death penalty legislation and executions can be legitimized on the basis of maintaining social order and promoting the public interest.
In other words, this is the principle of proportionality stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution, which stipulates that "all the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Articles shall not be restricted by law except such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare."
This involves the difficult question of whether the Constitution should only provide relative protection of human dignity. The existence of human dignity means the state should not use the public interest as a pretext for sacrificing goals and values of individuals. This means that the question of deterrence through capital punishment being more important than the human dignity of the condemned requires clarification by the court.
Unfortunately, the grand justices dodged these issues in their three interpretations. They also failed to give consideration to the fact that the sentence is irreversible, even if new evidence may exonerate the accused.
In their argument for the death penalty, the Council of Grand Justices displayed irresponsible, nonlinear thinking. Regardless of whether they made the right decision, they were not able to give a logical argument for their decision.
According to Council of Grand Justices Constitutional Interpretation No. 372, "The maintenance of personal dignity and the protection of personal safety are two of the fundamental concepts underlying the constitutional protection of the people's freedoms and rights."
In this light, the death penalty issue presents a challenge to the nation's constitutional foundation and is at the least deserving of a logical, rational constitutional interpretation.
Hsu Tze-tien is a doctoral candidate in law at the University of Tubingen in Germany.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS