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.
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS