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
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
RSS