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
With each passing day, the threat of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) assault on Taiwan grows. Whatever one’s view about the history, there is essentially no question that a PRC conquest of Taiwan would mark the end of the autonomy and freedom enjoyed by the island’s 23 million people. Simply put, the PRC threat to Taiwan is genuinely existential for a free, democratic and autonomous Taiwan. Yet one might not know it from looking at Taiwan. For an island facing a threat so acute, lethal and imminent, Taiwan is showing an alarming lack of urgency in dramatically strengthening its defenses.
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US
I still remember the first time I heard about the possibility of an invasion by China. I was six years old. I thought war was coming and hid in my bed, scared. After 18 years, the invasion news tastes like a sandwich I eat every morning. As a Gen Z Taiwanese student who has witnessed China’s harassment for more than 20 years, I want to share my opinion on China. Every generation goes through different events. I have seen not only the norms of China’s constant presence, but also the Sunflower movement, wars and people fighting over peace or equality,