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
There has been much catastrophizing in Taiwan recently about America becoming more unreliable as a bulwark against Chinese pressure. Some of this has been sparked by debates in Washington about whether the United States should defend Taiwan in event of conflict. There also were understandable anxieties about whether President Trump would sacrifice Taiwan’s interests for a trade deal when he sat down with President Xi (習近平) in late October. On top of that, Taiwan’s opposition political leaders have sought to score political points by attacking the Lai (賴清德) administration for mishandling relations with the United States. Part of this budding anxiety
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
On Nov. 8, newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) and Vice Chairman Chi Lin-len (季麟連) attended a memorial for White Terror era victims, during which convicted Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spies such as Wu Shi (吳石) were also honored. Cheng’s participation in the ceremony, which she said was part of her efforts to promote cross-strait reconciliation, has trapped herself and her party into the KMT’s dark past, and risks putting the party back on its old disastrous road. Wu, a lieutenant general who was the Ministry of National Defense’s deputy chief of the general staff, was recruited
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Nov. 5 recalled more than 150,000 eggs found to contain three times the legal limit of the pesticide metabolite fipronil-sulfone. Nearly half of the 1,169 affected egg cartons, which had been distributed across 10 districts, had already been sold. Using the new traceability system, officials quickly urged the public to avoid consuming eggs with the traceability code “I47045,” while the remainder were successfully recalled. Changhua County’s Wenya Farm — the source of the tainted eggs — was fined NT$120,000, and the Ministry of Agriculture instructed the county’s Animal Disease Control Center to require that
RSS