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.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
The Ministry of the Interior late last month released its report on homes that consumed low amounts of electricity in the second half of last year, offering a glimpse of the latest data on “vacant houses” — homes using less than 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. The report showed that Taiwan had 914,196 vacant houses, or a vacancy rate of 9.79 percent, up from 9.32 percent in the first half of last year and the highest since 2008, when it was 9.81 percent. Of the nation’s 22 administrative areas, Lienchiang County (Matsu) had the highest vacancy rate at 17.4
RSS