Justice done by execution?
Given the execution of five people in Taiwan on Friday, further to my article in the Taipei Times (“Abolishing executions safeguards our rights,” April 9, 2010, page 8), I must reiterate my complete opposition to, and disgust with, the continuation of the death penalty in Taiwan.
From the outset, I must clarify that the people executed most likely all committed heinous crimes and deserve to be punished accordingly, which means being locked away for life. However, the death penalty is not an issue of punishment, but an issue of human rights, as I and many others have clearly argued before.
First, there is always the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, as the recent case of the wrongful conviction of Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) proves beyond a doubt (“MND apologizes for wrongful execution,” Jan. 31, page 1). Because the death penalty is the one punishment that can never be reversed, it is always unjust — because courts, no matter how impartial, are inherently incapable of avoiding errors.
Second, internationally recognized human rights [trials] have beyond any doubt ruled that the death penalty is “cruel, inhuman or -degrading -treatment or punishment,” which violates an individual’s human rights.
Third, as I have argued before, there needs to be a final safeguard so that governments can never use the death penalty for their political interests. For these reasons, there is a strong international trend toward abolishing the death penalty. Apparently, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has not yet caught up with history.
With these executions, the Ma administration again proves that it does not understand the first thing about internationally recognized human rights.
For all of its pretty words about upholding human rights, when it comes to hard decisions, the administration apparently has no qualms about throwing human rights straight out the window to score a few cheap votes in upcoming elections.
Given the administration’s track record on human rights, economic equality and environmental protection, one can conclude that economic growth and prosperity for the richest few are its only real concerns.
While I would like to see an outcry from the expat community in Taiwan about these violations of basic human rights, it is only Taiwanese voters who can ultimately punish the administration for its one-sided decisions.
One would also hope that the Democratic Progressive Party finally makes up its mind and unequivocally promises to once and for all banish the death penalty from Taiwan’s law books if it should win the next national elections.
BRUNO WALTHER
Taipei
Execution is no deterrent
My father happens to be a retired psychiatrist who worked in Quebec’s top maximum security prison (Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Prison) once a week for more than 20 years. For years, especially because three of his brothers were also psychiatrists and yearly New Year festivities took place at our home, we, the children, were raised amid many arguments in favor of or against capital punishment, and about the nature of the mental afflictions and social conditions that lead to crime.
My father, who counseled the worst criminals, believes that neither the petty nor the most serious offenders necessarily act rationally and that for them, “finding a way to get away with it” far outweighs consideration of the potential punishment, as stated in your editorial (“Tar and feathers on Ma for killings,” March 8, page 8). The nature of the offenders varies greatly, of course, as do the conditions that led them to do what they did.
When I took some psychology classes in college, as part of my studies in public health, I spent a lot of time looking at studies on capital punishment from all over the Western world.
After the 1960s and 1970s, very few studies have found that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to crime. This largely is why the UN, many countries and dozens of states in the US have acted against it.
This is also why local NGOs here have been fighting so hard against it, sometimes with my limited participation.
As my good father once said, there is no moral argument for capital punishment. Most leading religions of the world say the same thing: You shall not kill.
Whether the killer kills (or whatever crime is committed), or we kill the killers, there is no moral, statistical or judicial validity in saying that capital punishment deters crime.
Taiwan, under Ma the stray horse, is taking a huge step backward with all these recent executions, and the many more to come according to the taste of Ma’s judicial officers.
BORIS VOYER
Taipei
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS