A domestic violence incident became a homicide in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城) on Monday last week, when a 46-year-old man, surnamed Hsieh (謝), allegedly rammed his car into his 42-year-old wife and her 33-year-old younger sister, both surnamed Chang (張), before allegedly stabbing them to death.
The wife had already applied for a restraining order against her husband in May, and police apprehended him over the weekend for violating it. However, the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office granted Hsieh bail on Sunday, and with 24 hours of his release, the shocking tragedy unfolded.
Restraining orders are effective in deterring abuse in about 80 percent of domestic violence cases, experts said. Only a small number of offenders — typically those with criminal records, mental health issues or highly controlling tendencies — challenge such legal restrictions.
Experts urged people not to dismiss the importance of retraining orders due to last week’s isolated incident, as doing so might prevent more people from seeking help. That warning must be taken seriously.
As for the less common, high-risk cases, is the system adequately prepared?
People who defy the terms of their restraining orders are not unaware of the restrictions — they just do not fear the consequences.
When such incidents occur, are the existing mechanisms for judicial intervention and crisis prevention truly prepared to handle them?
Restraining orders are important protective tools that carry a legal and deterrent effect. They prohibit perpetrators from committing acts of violence or harassment, and might also require them to keep a certain distance away from the person who filed the request or vacate a shared residence.
For law-abiding people, restraining orders draw a clear legal red line. To those intent on committing violence, they do little to stop premeditated acts of revenge.
The prevention and handling of domestic violence cases cannot rely solely on restraining orders or the efforts of frontline personnel.
In last week’s case, the offender was arrested by police and sent to the prosecutors’ office — all according to standard procedure.
However, that Hsieh was released highlights a lack of sensitivity within the law enforcement system toward the severity of domestic violence cases.
While police and social workers do their utmost on the front lines, the judiciary must shoulder the responsibility of being the final line of defense.
When dealing with perpetrators who contravene restraining orders or have a history of violence, prosecutors should exercise heightened vigilance and consider precautionary measures such as detention, bail or supervision. Courts must also impose deterrent penalties. If the judiciary fails to respond quickly and effectively, victims are left exposed to the risk of further harm.
Ken is the pen name of a domestic violence social worker.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS