A 15-year-old boy surnamed Tseng (曾) from Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖) illegally drove his grandfather’s sports utility vehicle on the evening of Oct. 17 and crashed into a roadside eatery, killing three and injuring two. Such a serious incident, along with the fact that the sentence for young people under the age of 18 can be reduced by half according to the Criminal Code, triggered a public outcry.
This case is about a negligent act that caused multiple deaths and injuries. According to Article 55 of the Criminal Code, which regulates sentences for concurrent offenses, an act subject to more than one criminal sanction shall be penalized by only the most severe among the individual sentences.
According to Article 276 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for a negligent death is five years in prison. Although there were multiple instances, Article 55 means that the maximum sentence is only five years, which would then be reduced to two-and-a-half years in the case of a minor. The punishment is obviously disproportionate to the crime.
A similar case involved Lee Yi-hsiang (李義祥), the main suspect in the Taroko Express crash that killed 49 and injured 213 in 2021. He was sentenced to only five years in prison, the maximum penalty for negligent homicide, which also raised public concerns about the punishment not fitting the crime.
The Executive Yuan has proposed amendments to Article 183 of the Criminal Code, which relates to the crime of overturning and destroying a vehicle, and Article 276, which regulates the crime of negligent homicide, adding provisions to increase the punishment for those who cause the death of three or more people due to gross negligence.
Despite the good intention, the bill failed to pass in the Legislative Yuan due to objections from a majority of legal experts.
Another attempt to revive the amendment was made last year after a blaze at a golf ball factory owned by manufacturer Launch Technologies Co in Pingtung County killed nine people and injured more than 100. However, it also failed to pass.
The Criminal Code is meant to protect our social norms and is the last line of defense for fairness and justice. It must keep up with the times.
The century-old predecessor of the current Criminal Code is the Qing Dynasty’s New Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1911 when vehicles were not as large and fast as they are now, and the types of crimes also differed greatly from the modern era due to changing social lifestyles.
Taiwan is a small and densely populated island with plenty of people lacking awareness of proper behavior. A negligent act could easily cause multiple deaths and injuries.
The ruling and opposition parties should put aside the useless disputes in the Legislative Yuan over whether to abolish the death penalty. Instead, they should communicate and coordinate on amending the Criminal Code to address serious negligent crimes as soon as possible.
When it comes to juvenile criminal trials, Taiwan’s Criminal Code has long been based on German law. German legislators believe that because the juvenile court is a professional court division, it should not be solely down to the judge to decide what kind of punishment meets the educational needs.
Instead, experts in education, psychology, sociology, psychiatry and other professions should be involved in the decision process. It is therefore necessary to establish a comprehensive system of expert participation before the juvenile criminal law can become an “education law.”
Establishing a system for juvenile criminal trial participation should not be difficult, given Taiwan’s society and legal system, including the experience of the citizen judge system that was launched two years ago.
The juvenile criminal court would be the first to establish expert participation in trials. Other professional court divisions, such as military courts, family courts and commercial courts, could then follow suit.
This would make Taiwan’s legal system more complete and in line with the trends in other advanced countries.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS