Former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) strongly supports the abolishment of the death penalty and recently released an open letter in which she discussed her ideals about the abolishment of capital punishment, stating that abolishing the death penalty is a way of guaranteeing the “right to life.”
Wang’s staunch support for abolishing the death penalty and the views she expressed about how the death penalty should be suspended caused an immediate stir in public opinion. Many argued that this would violate the principle of conducting administrative affairs in a legal fashion, and was another contributing factor to Wang’s resignation.
Even after her resignation, capital punishment has remained a highly contentious issue, with different sides fighting back and forth over seemingly conflicting issues like the “right to life” and “judicial justice.”
Abolishment of the death penalty is a trend in human rights that is spreading around the world and is an idea based on principles including the right to life and universal human rights.
However, if we objectively look at Taiwan, where more than 74 percent of the population are in favor of retaining the death penalty, we can see that most people consider it the best possible deterrence to would-be criminals. In addition, people have since ancient times viewed retributive justice as appropriate and proper. The idea that murderers should pay for their crime with their own life is deeply ingrained in people’s minds, while some also believe the death penalty offers a form of compensatory comfort to the victim’s family.
It remains to be seen whether the 44 confirmed death row inmates will be executed according to current legislation now that newly appointed Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) has taken office.
Point 4 of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Taiwan approved and ratified last year, states: “Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.” It will be interesting to see how the government handles those sentenced to death who apply for amnesty according to the covenant. This is something all government departments concerned should think about carefully.
For the moment, while the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is still considering the gradual abolishment of the death penalty, the only way to handle the legal aid procedures that will be required by those on death row is to amend and expand the Pardon Act (赦免法) and establish an appeals committee to handle related cases and set up a detailed set of deliberation procedures. Otherwise, if the MOJ continues to carry out the death penalty while the debate about the death sentence is still raging, it would not only be in conflict with the two recently signed international covenants on human rights, but would also indicate an extreme lack of resolve on the government’s behalf when it comes to putting the two covenants into practice.
The MOJ has been promoting and establishing a task force to research the death penalty and its abolition (逐步廢除死刑研究推動小組), as well as planning other measures that could lead to the abolishment of capital punishment, such as improving public security, offering better protection to victims, alternatives for punishment once the death sentence is abolished, improving prison and rehabilitation management and disseminating information about the abolishment of the death penalty to the public. However, it is preferable if the gradual abolishment of capital punishment can be achieved on the basis of social consensus and once all doubts surrounding its abolishment have been dispelled.
Before alternatives are established, however, the government really needs to pay attention to the social environment and make gradual adjustments in accordance with public opinion while also striving to balance “the right to life” and “judicial justice.”
Whether to keep or abolish the death penalty is a complex issue. Apart from showing concern for the right to life of those sentenced to death, the government needs to pay attention to the rights of the victims and consider the feelings of the victim’s family while also finding suitable substitutes for the death penalty. One option the government can consider as a substitute is life imprisonment.
The death penalty is not something that can be abolished overnight. Time is needed before a social consensus on abolishing the death penalty is reached.
Taiwan still has a lot of work to do concerning education and the dissemination of information regarding the abolishment of capital punishment. If the government views the ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty as a path to judicial reform and a way of putting the ideals of human rights into practice, then it should draw up a complete set of measures and alternatives based on the current state of Taiwan’s social environment and developments in the rule of law, come up with supplementary measures and alternatives, increase the quality of education about human rights and correct the prevalent social attitude that people who have done wrong deserve ultimate retribution. This is the only way we can begin to gain public consensus on the abolishment of the death penalty and change the nation for the better.
Lee Yung-ran is a lawyer and president of the Chinese Association for Human Rights.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS