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.
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The saga of Sarah Dzafce, the disgraced former Miss Finland, is far more significant than a mere beauty pageant controversy. It serves as a potent and painful contemporary lesson in global cultural ethics and the absolute necessity of racial respect. Her public career was instantly pulverized not by a lapse in judgement, but by a deliberate act of racial hostility, the flames of which swiftly encircled the globe. The offensive action was simple, yet profoundly provocative: a 15-second video in which Dzafce performed the infamous “slanted eyes” gesture — a crude, historically loaded caricature of East Asian features used in Western
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
RSS