The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies.
As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect.
Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way.
UNACCEPTABLE
Viewing the situation in Taiwanese society and weighing the pros and cons, if the death penalty were to be completely abolished, the vast majority of Taiwanese would find it difficult to accept such a decision emotionally.
If a person is so brutal and vicious that their humanity is extinguished, then the state’s public power might be justified in inflicting the death penalty, which is in defense of the righteousness of the heavens, in line with the world’s laws and order and in keeping with the religious purpose of advising people to follow virtue.
If the possibility of a “miscarriage of justice” is a concern, then we should appropriately strengthen the system by improving the procedures of trial and execution.
In the design of the criminal legal system, the death penalty should be used sparingly or not at all, but such a penalty should not be completely abolished. Many countries that are advanced in democracy and the rule of law, such as the US and Japan, have not abolished this kind of penalty yet, so we can learn from them.
In our criminal legal system, the death penalty is no longer the only punishment for certain major crimes, as the law has been amended to “death penalty or life imprisonment” — known as the “relative death penalty” (相對死刑). This gives judges some room for discretion in light of the circumstances of each case. As for future improvement of the legal procedures involved in the death penalty, it can remedy the flaws pointed out by supporters of its abolition.
This is exactly something that the government can still work on.
Looking at current practice in the judicial system, judges quite often regard the “possibility of correction” as a “gold standard of death exemption” (免死金牌) for defendants in major crimes.
Such a myth in law enforcement leaves the victims dead, with injustice unredressed and the surviving family members unconvinced.
How can we do justice to the rights of victims, and how can we satisfy the legal sentiments of good people?
PRISON CAPACITY
As far as the law is concerned, “possibility of correction” is not grounds for exemption from the death penalty, not to mention that it is an uncertain concept.
Moreover, if the death penalty is really replaced by life imprisonment, such a replacement would not only cost taxpayers money to support the prisoners for a lifetime, but also take up more space in prisons.
It is no wonder that prisons are always overcrowded, making it difficult to manage them, resulting in numerous problems and even expanding the number of prisons across Taiwan.
What a shame for the country.
Hsu Wun-pin is the honorary chair of the Chinese Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
RSS