Ever since arriving in Taiwan, I have been pleasantly surprised by the friendliness and hospitality of its people.
However, there is one issue that leaves me feeling particularly uneasy — the fact that Taiwan retains the death penalty, despite its abolition by most other countries. Having grown up in a democratic Germany that respects human rights, I would like to make what I believe is an important historical and legal argument against the death penalty.
The argument arises from the horrible experience of Adolf Hitler’s regime. While this terrible regime inflicted horrendous suffering on the people of numerous countries, it also imposed injustice on many Germans, particularly Jews, of course, but also many others, including political opponents.
The Hitler regime used the death penalty as a political weapon to silence dissent, creating a situation where a person could be executed for complaining about the war or telling the wrong joke. After the war, the Allied forces asked German legal experts to write a new constitution for a democratic Germany and the abolition of capital punishment was the natural consequence of having experienced how easily the death penalty can be used for terror and suppression.
Abolishing the death penalty safeguards human rights because it ensures a government can claim no legal justification for taking a life. However carefully the death penalty is enforced, there always exists the possibility of abuse or error: planted evidence, bad lawyers and wrongful convictions leading to the execution of innocents or those deemed dangerous or inconvenient.
Our inalienable right to life should never be subject to opinion polls, just as the right to a fair trial should never be replaced by a lynch mob. Public opinion wavers and is therefore a poor guide on fundamental issues such as human rights. Indeed, one of the reasons inalienable human rights exist is to protect citizens from the ebb and flow of public opinion, changing governments and concepts of justice.
The state should hold itself to a higher moral standard than the criminals it incarcerates, especially those who commit the most heinous crimes.
Only by adhering to the highest principles can the state claim the right to judge its citizens, because only then can it reasonably claim a higher moral authority than individual citizens, who are easily swayed by the latest media reports and opinion polls. As the political philosopher Michael Sandel recently argued, “you might as well say that throwing Christians to the lions was a good idea because there were more spectators getting pleasure from the spectacle than there were victims suffering pain.”
Emotional issues, such as revenge, have no place in legal arguments over human rights. A modern society is built on one of the truly great achievements of human history — the acceptance of universal human rights.
Recent assertions by Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) that enforcing capital punishment would not violate UN human rights conventions are not just wrong, they reflect an attitude that is both dangerous and detrimental to the building of a truly democratic Taiwan.
Abolishing the death penalty would reflect well on Taiwan. It would also give Taiwan moral high ground over China where, in the words of Amnesty International, “capital punishment [was] applied extensively to send political messages, to silence opponents or to promote political agendas,” just as it was in Hitler’s Germany. That must never again happen in Taiwan.
Bruno Walther is a visiting assistant professor of environmental science at Taipei Medical University’s College of Public Health and Nutrition.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
RSS