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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS