The recent death of an infant, due to alleged abuse by a caregiver in Taipei, has caused widespread public anger.
Aside from the caregiver, a social worker from the Child Welfare League Foundation (CWLF), who was responsible for providing guidance for the child’s well-being, was detained on suspicion of forgery and negligent homicide. However, when the police put the woman in handcuffs, her treatment sparked protests.
The main reason for this was not the detainee’s status, but the use of restraining devices, which must strictly adhere to the presumption of innocence and the principle of proportionality.
Another aspect worthy of closer consideration is whether the attribution of criminal liability for the child’s death should include the social worker.
If anyone other than the caretaker is to be held responsible for the child’s death, it could only be someone who was in the position of a guarantor — that is to say, someone who had a duty to do whatever was necessary to prevent the child’s death.
Since the social worker was responsible for providing guidance and visiting the premises, she had a duty to protect the child who was placed in the caregiver’s home and prevent any physical or mental harm from being done to the child.
So, if the social worker failed to visit the premises and check whether the child was being abused, that could well be a case of negligence in the sense of “not noticing things that should have been noticed.”
If this was the reason the social worker was unable to detect and report the abuse early enough, which ended in a tragedy, then it would seem that she should bear criminal responsibility for negligence and inaction leading to the death of a person.
However, given that the social worker had no official authority, how often and how thoroughly did she need to visit the foster home to fulfill her duty?
Even if the social worker is found to have not fulfilled her duty to effectively monitor the situation, when one considers that the child’s death was caused by the caregiver’s abuse, the causal relationship between the social worker’s inaction and the child’s death is open to dispute.
If it is impossible to prove a cause and effect relationship, then — based on the principle that reasonable doubt should work in favor of the accused and the fact that criminal law only punishes negligence if it results in actual harm — the social worker’s inaction would be unpunishable negligence.
The obstacles that criminal law places in the way of holding the social worker responsible for negligent homicide demonstrate criminal law’s principle of moderation.
They also demonstrate that the blame for the child’s death should not be borne solely by the social worker, especially considering Taiwan’s serious social worker shortage.
It would be fairer for the blame to be put on CWLF and competent authorities who have a duty to supervise such situations.
The fact that criminal law does not recognize “complicity” in negligence or that a corporate entity could be the subject of a crime, would make it even more difficult to pursue criminal charges against the people in charge of the corporate entity or the officials of the relevant government departments.
It would therefore only be possible to pursue their civil liability and seek state compensation. However, pursuing such a case would be a long, slow slog for the victim’s family.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Law and director of its Criminal Law Research Center.
Translated by Julian Clegg
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS