The Constitutional Court announced that it is to hear a case on the constitutionality of the death penalty and has scheduled oral arguments on April 23, attracting widespread attention.
However, instead of delving into the core debate of whether the death penalty contravenes the Constitution, legislators across party lines and the media have been preoccupied by arguing whether the grand justices should or should not make a ruling.
Curiously, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators seem to think that it should be handled by the legislature. Is that really the case?
In 2000, Taiwan underwent its first transfer of political power to another party, and under the DPP administration, there was a shift in policy toward gradually abolishing the death penalty.
The Ministry of Justice also proposed a white paper on gradually abolishing the death penalty, and there was a four-year moratorium on executions from 2006 to 2009.
In 2008, the KMT regained power. The following year the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were adopted under domestic law.
According to Article 6 of the ICCPR, Taiwan should move toward abolishing the death penalty, meaning there was bipartisan commitment at the time.
However, in 2010, the administration of then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) resumed executions, going against the spirit of the covenant.
From 2010 to 2016, the KMT executed 33 people and the DPP has executed two since 2016.
The judiciary, based on separation of powers, plays a crucial role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals.
However, marginalized groups, including minorities, the vulnerable and those with less visibility, face challenges in effectively lobbying and expressing their concerns through the democratic process. The judiciary is designed to compensate for this issue of insufficient democratic representation.
One advantage of the judiciary lies in its expertise in gathering facts and analyzing legal matters, enabling it to render impartial judgements independent of political conflicts.
Therefore, when people ask why grand justices can override public support for retaining the death penalty, it raises a fundamental question about who can make important decisions.
The historical context reveals the failure of policymakers and legislators to effectively address the complexities surrounding the death penalty. For more than 20 years, this issue has been neglected and postponed, but now the grand justices are finally addressing it.
In upholding democracy and the separation of powers, regardless of anyone’s views on the death penalty, it is crucial to provide the grand justices with a rational space to address the issue. Taiwanese should refrain from misinforming and misleading public discourse. The institution of amici curiae (friends of the court) in the Constitutional Court aims to provide the grand justices with a broader range of perspectives and arguments for their consideration. If this is deemed insufficient, individuals or groups could also post public comments or organize events to discuss the issues.
Previously, the Constitutional Court’s grand justices declined to hear constitutional interpretation cases brought by death-row prisoners, but the landscape is shifting. In addition to the domestication of international human rights covenants, the Constitutional Court’s progressive rulings on issues such as same-sex marriage and adultery suggest a growing awareness of human rights protection among the grand justices.
Regarding the death penalty, the ultimate decision on this matter would depend on the current Constitutional Court’s will.
To define the societal values Taiwanese aspire to, it is essential for the grand justices to make decisions that align closely with those of progressive democratic societies that prioritize the protection of human rights, free from political influence. This necessitates collaboration between the judicial, executive and legislative branches, along with civil society, to develop concrete and achievable plans for Taiwan’s advancement.
Lin Hsin-yi is executive director of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS