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
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