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.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS