The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that the right to life is the most basic of human rights. However, in its decision to reject a request for constitutional interpretation on May 28 last year, the Council of Grand Justices said that following the spirit of Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the covenant, there is currently nothing to prevent the death penalty from being carried out in any country where it remains legal in cases of major crimes, providing the laws in effect at the time the crime was committed do not conflict with ICCPR regulations or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Based on Paragraph 4 of the same article, the question of whether those who have received the death penalty have the right to ask for a pardon or a reduction in sentence as laid out in the Amnesty Act (赦免法) depends on how the legislature implements Article 8 of the Act to Implement the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法).
Under the current legal system, anyone in Taiwan who receives the death sentence and meets the conditions detailed in the Amnesty Act automatically has the right to request a general amnesty, a pardon or a sentence reduction.
Taiwan’s current implementation of the death penalty is not a violation of the regulations of the aforementioned covenants, nor is it just ink on paper, nor are such actions “against international human rights norms.”
The abolition of the death penalty hinges on the development of social ideas about the rule of law and a supporting consensus in wider society.
As many as 70 to 80 percent of Taiwanese currently oppose the abolition of capital punishment. The Ministry of Justice is therefore relying on legal amendments and other methods to gradually decrease the use of the death penalty and increase public support for the long-term goal of abolition.
However, “reducing the use of the death penalty” refers to both the decreased use of capital punishment in the legal system and being more careful when such sentences are passed.
This does not mean that death sentences confirmed in all three court instances will not be carried out in accordance with the law.
There is no conflict between President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) declaration that the use of the death penalty will decrease and the ministry carrying out death sentences, nor is this in any way contradictory or hypocritical.
The cases of the five death row inmates recently executed in accordance with the law had all been subject to careful and detailed investigation. They were provided with a forceful defense by their lawyers and the death penalty was only carried out after their cases were heard and reviewed in three instances.
Two of the men, Chung Teh-shu (鍾德樹) and Kuan Chung-yen (管鐘演), had their cases remanded by the court six times, and while on death row all five asked for retrials and extraordinary appeals on several occasions.
When all the appeals in a death sentence have been exhausted, the ministry appoints dedicated personnel to carefully examine all information in the case based on the aforementioned points, to ensure the prisoner’s right to appeal is protected. This is very different from what happened to Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), who was wrongfully executed in 1997. I really do not see how people are now connecting the two cases and saying more and more people are likely to be wrongfully put to death.
Wu Chen-huan is Deputy Minister of Justice.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
RSS