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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS