How do you put a price on a human life? You cannot. Although most people would probably agree that, recent events could force us to revisit that supposition.
Fourteen years ago, air force Private Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) was found guilty of murder by a court martial and executed. The government said the legal process was followed to the letter of the law.
However, it was subsequently revealed that mistakes had been made and the same military court determined Chiang was innocent of the crime for which he had been executed.
Again, this was all done in strict adherence to the law the government says.
Last week, the court, again in line with the law, ruled that Chiang’s mother, Wang Tsai-lien (王彩蓮), would receive more than NT$103.18 million (US$3.4 million) in compensation for the loss of her beloved son.
That is how a price is put on a human life, though I doubt anyone would be willing to sell his or her own life for that amount.
When interviewed about the proposed compensation, Wang said that no amount of money could bring back her child. It was heartrending to hear. It is a lot of money, but what does that mean?
The thing that strikes me most is that the killing of her child was done according to the law, but so was changing the verdict to “not guilty,” absolving Chiang of any wrongdoing and leading to the proposed compensation.
The presiding judge said that no further action would be brought against the officers responsible for this terrible error, including former minister of national defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏), who was chief of the Air Force Combat Command at the time, because the statute of limitations for their possible crimes had already expired. Once again this has all been done to the letter of the law.
Is there something I am missing here or is this not meant to be understandable? It seems that Taiwanese just have to grin and bear anything the government decides to do, whether it is right or wrong, as long as the government claims “it was all done to the letter of the law.”
Taiwanese do not have any choice in the matter; we must simply accept what we are given. The law now instructs that the public must foot the bill for this blood money paid to “correct” the injustice done to Chiang and his family.
The Ministry of National Defense now says that it is going to convene a panel of experts to look into how it might seek compensation from the individuals involved, which I am sure is completely in line with the law. However, will the panel conclude — as did the presiding judge — that, according to the law, these people cannot be prosecuted and that the ministry has no recourse in seeking compensation from them? It is certainly possible.
The government’s attitude seems to be that all it needs to do is hold up its hands and say: “Yes, we wrongfully executed Chiang, and that was unfortunate, but we have been as sincere as we can about it and paid out an unprecedented amount in compensation,” and that is that.
If the government fails to clarify who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice, Chiang’s life and death will have been in vain. Such clarification would include addressing the role of the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office, which initially ruled that Chen and another eight individuals could not be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had expired.
In the middle of July, the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors’ Office overruled this decision, saying that the inquiry into whether these individuals were complicit in the wrongful taking of a life and guilty of an abuse of power should continue, to ascertain whether they were guilty of complicity in an individual’s torture, detention and death.
For three months, nothing further has been heard from the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office. What has it been doing all this time? And who is going to pay the compensation? If it is split between all Taiwanese that would come to about NT$5 each. So that is fine, isn’t it? Everyone will just have to eat one less dumpling to cover the cost.
Even more important is the need to reform the system. We have to ask whether the military appeals system can be maintained in its current form, whether there is room for reform or it should be abolished in its present incarnation.
There is a need for reform in the criminal justice system to put an end to the illegal obtaining of confessions from suspects, often through the use of torture.
Would it really be so difficult to enforce a rule that stipulated a lawyer must be present during the interrogation of a suspect? Since it costs the country more than NT$100 million for every person wrongfully executed, why not use that money to make sure having a lawyer present becomes standard practice, so we can avoid a repeat of this unfortunate incident?
However, unlike the fatal error committed by the government in its handling of this case, which it has to be said was completely consistent with its legal obligations, the government does not have any legal responsibility to pursue such reforms.
Strictly speaking, of course, a government does not really have any legal obligation to reform and attempts to do so frequently run up against the lazy insistence that “everything is being done according to the law.”
It is well within the rights of those in power to act according to the law, do nothing about the situation and leave people to fend for themselves. However, with elections approaching, Taiwanese get the chance to use their vote, according to the law of course, to support those candidates who refuse to hide behind the excuse that things are being done according to the law.
This is the best way the nation could pay its respects to Chiang’s memory.
Lin Feng-jeng is a lawyer and executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Paul Cooper
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
RSS