On Thursday last week, a 17-year-old surnamed Liu (劉) turned himself in after discharging a modified submachine gun more than 50 times at a closed pawnshop in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城). After investigating the incident, police detained two other teenagers in connection with a previous attack on the same pawnshop on April 10.
The shootings in broad daylight have unnerved the public.
The Criminal Code says that “an offense committed by a person who is under fourteen years of age is not punishable,” while “punishment may be reduced for an offense committed by a person more than the age of fourteen but under the age of eighteen.”
In practice, offenders aged 14 to 18 get largely reduced penalties, and commutations if they turn themselves in. This could be one of the major reasons that, according to crime data, fraud rings and other criminal organizations exploit underage people to commit crimes on their behalf.
Under the Criminal Code, teenagers younger than 14 lack criminal responsibility, while those aged 14 to 18 have limited criminal responsibility.
Those age thresholds are higher than in most other countries. For example, the age of criminal responsibility in the UK was in 1998 lowered to 10, and underage offenders serve their sentences in secure centers for young people. The age of criminal responsibility is 13 in France, and 12 in Ireland and the Netherlands.
In China, the age thresholds for limited and full criminal responsibility were in 2020 set at 14 and 18 respectively. The amendment was drafted in response to a continuous surge in juvenile delinquency and stipulates that children aged 12 to 14 who intentionally kill or cause bodily harm to another person resulting in their death or severe disability due to patently cruel or unusual methods can be charged with full criminal responsibility. In such cases, the Chinese Supreme People’s Procuratorate has to approve the charges.
These examples could become references for amendments in Taiwan.
Taiwanese legislation on juvenile delinquency is modeled after German laws. The Juvenile Justice Act (少年事件處理法) is a special act established for offenders aged under 18. Article 27 sets rules for pre-deliberation and stipulates that juveniles who commit an offense that carries a prison term of up to five years should stand trial in a juvenile court.
The article means that juvenile offenders merely get a slap on the wrist, but it is also in line with the prevention concept laid out in global criminal justice standards.
The only flaw with the act is Article 74, which states that when a young person commits an offense that carries a prison term of up to 10 years, the court can remit the punishment and order protective measures “if a sentence reduced in accordance with Article 59 of the Criminal Code is still too heavy.”
Aside from felonies such as manslaughter or forcing others to commit sexual intercourse, young people are exempt from punishment for most offenses. Such a lenient system could embolden juvenile offenders to commit further crimes, instead of deterring them.
The Juvenile Justice Act’s parameters for pre-deliberation and punishment exemption are too wide, potentially letting off juvenile offenders too easily.
Taiwan’s age of criminal responsibility dates back to the establishment of the Criminal Code in 1935. The regulations should be updated to bring them in line with modern society.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Rita Wang
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had