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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS