In 2023, a one-year-old boy, nicknamed Kai Kai (剴剴), was allegedly beaten to death by his caregivers, Liu Tsai-hsuan (劉彩萱) and Liu Juo-lin (劉若琳). A doctor testified in court that Kai Kai’s medical examination showed evidence of severe physical and psychological trauma caused by long-term physical, mental and sexual abuse. The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office indicted the sisters under Article 286 of the Criminal Code for impairing the mental and physical development of a minor. The trial has reignited debates over penalties for crimes related to child abuse.
Article 286 was promulgated in 1935 and has been amended three times — in 2012, 2019 and last year. It states that a person whose maltreatment of a minor results in death “shall” be sentenced to life imprisonment or imprisonment of not less than 10 years. In cases resulting in serious injury, the perpetrator faces a prison sentence of five to 12 years. If the victim is younger than seven, the sentence would be increased “up to one half.” Despite amendments to the law, the public continues to criticize such sentences as being far too lenient.
The courts have historically followed Supreme Court rulings No. 3378 of 1939 and No. 1004 of 1958, which state that Article 47 of the Criminal Code — which stipulates that the principal punishment for a recidivist “shall” be increased by up to one half — only sets a maximum limit for increasing punishment. Thus, courts have the discretion to decide how much to increase punishments within that range.
In other words, while the article states that sentences shall be increased by up to one half, in practice, the sentences “may” be increased — there is no requirement. Data indicate that courts typically lengthen sentences by just one month, making the goal of imposing harsher sentences appear unachievable.
To solve the issue, the government should look to Article 44 of the newly enacted Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act (詐欺犯罪危害防制條例), which states that when raising penalties of certain sentences as permitted in the act, the maximum and minimum penalties shall be raised concurrently. That directly limits judicial discretion and mandates an actual increase in the principal sentence through legislation, a model that could be applied to crimes of child abuse.
Children younger than seven are unable to protect themselves from unlawful harm. Thus, legislation must provide special protections for this group. Taking inspiration from Article 272 of the Criminal Code, which states that an individual who commits or attempts homicide “against his lineal blood ascendant shall be subject to the punishment prescribed for such an offense by increasing it up to one half.”
Applying the same provision to penalties for the maltreatment of children younger than seven would serve as a deterrent and uphold the principle of proportionality.
Abusing a child to the point of death severely contravenes the right to life — it is hard to imagine that such perpetrators have the potential for rehabilitation. The government could consider a proposal by the legislature’s Legal Affairs Bureau that perpetrators of particularly egregious crimes not be allowed parole. Alternatively, it could outline a stricter set of parole guidelines similar to Article 49 of the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act.
Protecting children requires a comprehensive social support system, not sole reliance on harsher criminal penalties. Prevention is more important than punishment. Early intervention, family support and educational resources can reduce the frequency of child abuse cases. Amending the Criminal Code alone is not enough — only through the care and investment of society can we truly defend the safety and well-being of children.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS