Taiwan is recognized as one of the leading democracies in Asia and is renowned for its progress in human rights. However, visitors from abroad are often surprised to learn that Taiwan still sentences people to death — and continues to carry out executions.
Under all circumstances, a democratic country should ensure judicial fairness to protect people and maintain social justice.
However, the judicial system is run by human beings, and human beings make mistakes. For a democratic country founded on the rule of law, miscarriages of justice and executions of the innocent are utterly unacceptable.
The “Hsichih Trio” were wrongly convicted in 1999 and exonerated in 2012 after years of legal battles. Even today, they are haunted by disturbing civil compensation lawsuits. Their lives have been deeply burdened by the wrongful conviction, leaving them unable to feel true freedom.
Other wrongful convictions include Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), who was executed in 1997, and Lu Cheng (盧正), who was executed in 2000. Cheng Hsing-tse (鄭性澤) and Hsieh Chih-hung (謝志宏) were fortunately exonerated.
Meanwhile, death row prisoners Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順) and 73-year-old Wang Xin-fu (王信福) are also believed to be innocent and are at risk of execution.
The death penalty, a tool from Taiwan’s authoritarian past, does not belong in our democratic present and future.
Under the dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), sentences of political dissidents could be arbitrarily altered to a death sentence. In some cases, Chiang ordered an immediate execution without due process. Thousands of Taiwanese disappeared, or were injured, silenced or killed under authoritarian rule for decades.
The death penalty is often a tool used by politicians to divert attention. Death row prisoners become political hostages.
That argument has been confirmed by the execution carried out in January and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) continued use of the death penalty issue to detract from the nationwide recall campaign to oust blue-camp politicians. The democracy and human rights we fought hard to achieve can easily regress if we fail to defend them. We urge the Taiwanese to learn lessons from the past.
The death penalty represents a shallow vision of justice. It denies people the chance to repent, to make amends, to forgive and to be forgiven, and promote learning and healing.
We understand that the public needs to isolate the people who have committed serious crimes. Most of the 36 people on death row have been in prison for an average of more than 20 years. They might have changed and wish to atone for the harms they have caused over the years.
A democracy should allow individuals the chance for redemption; the death penalty does not provide such opportunities.
According to Constitutional Judgement No. 8 on the constitutionality of the death penalty, cases of all current death row prisoners should be given the opportunity to be reviewed. However, the minister of justice ignored the ruling and carried out the execution of Huang Lin-kai (黃麟凱) anyway.
We were shocked and outraged by that decision, because it demonstrated how death row prisoners were arbitrarily deprived of their right to seek legal remedies — and how authorities disregarded the constitutional ruling. The execution proves again that the death penalty is used a convenient tool for politicians, regardless of political affiliation.
Executions do not guarantee social safety. To reduce the crime rate and improve social stability, social security measures must be implemented, including improving labor conditions and social welfare systems. We must not take the death penalty lightly. The death penalty is inherently inappropriate for a democratic country — and always will be.
Lin Hsin-yi is executive director of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty. Wu Jia-zhen is deputy director of the alliance.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
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
RSS