As the nation mourns the death of an eight-year-old girl whose throat was allegedly cut by a 29-year-old man in what appears to be a random act of violence, condemnation has again arisen, not against the suspect, but rather activists against the death penalty.
However, the murder serves as proof that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to keep people from committing such cruel crimes.
Members of the public, politicians and political commentators have rushed to point the finger at the campaign against the death penalty, saying that the abolishment of capital punishment would only make the security situation worse, since people would have less to think about before committing a crime.
This theory — if it can be called that — is far from making any sense.
These people should remember that Taiwan still has the death penalty, and therefore, if capital punishment were an effective way to prevent such crimes, the tragedy that occurred yesterday would not have happened at all.
In fact, a similar argument was made in May last year, when Tunghai University student Chen Chieh (鄭捷) indiscriminately killed several people traveling on a train in Taipei’s MRT system. However, five death row inmates had been executed just one month before the attack. As such, the theory that executions prevent violence is flawed.
Since the death penalty cannot help to prevent crimes, the only purpose remaining for it to serve is revenge. Many supporters of the death penalty have argued that executions give victims’ families closure and help them “feel better,” but how can someone fully recover from the sorrow of losing a loved one? If a victim’s family and friends really do “feel better” after the perpetrator is executed, then how are they any different from killers who commit such crimes so that they can “feel better?”
One very serious risk of the death penalty is the chance of wrongfully convicting an innocent — an especially big risk in Taiwan, as most in the judiciary apparently follow the principle of “guilty until proven innocent” when dealing with serious crimes. The judiciary tends to rush investigations and hearings when such crimes are the focus of public attention.
Take, for example, the case of Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), an air force private who was convicted for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl in 1996, and executed in 1997. In 2011, Hsu Jung-chou (許榮洲), who served with Chiang, admitted to being the actual perpetrator of the crime. Yes, Chiang’s honor was finally restored, but the penalty against him is irreversible. Chiang’s story is but one of many similar cases.
If the taking of life is considered wrong, why is it acceptable for the government to kill someone? With capital punishment, there is always the possibility of wrongfully executing an innocent, and there is always the possibility of that the government will abuse its power.
Those in favor of capital punishment should keep in mind that abolishing the death penalty does not mean that perpetrators will be spared their legal responsibilities and punishment. Instead, by keeping them alive and imprisoned, they might be able to make positive contributions to society to make up for the mistakes they have made.
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS