Thu, Nov 05, 2020 page3

• Ruling sought on mandatory therapy for sex offenders

  • Staff writer, with CNA
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  A legal argument over whether convicted sex offenders should be held in a designated facility for mandatory therapy after release from prison was heard on Tuesday by the Council of Grand Justices.

  The argument revolves around Article 22-1 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act (性侵害犯罪防治法), which states that sex offenders can be ordered to undergo inpatient treatment after completing their prison term if a medical evaluation concludes that there is a danger of recidivism.

  While the law specifies that offenders must be evaluated yearly to determine their rehabilitation progress, it does not set a maximum period for such therapy, meaning that in principle, they can be held indefinitely.

  The four petitioners in the case are asking the grand justices to rule on a maximum period for treatment in a psychiatric facility designated for that purpose.

  Their argument is that the law breaches Article 8 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal freedom, and also Article 23, which deals with the principle of proportionality.

  The lead petitioner in the case, surnamed Lu (盧), served a sentence from 2008 to 2011 for a sexual offense and — based on annual medical evaluations — has since been in compulsory therapy at a psychiatric facility because he is deemed a threat to the public.

  Judge Chang Yuan-sen (張淵森), one of the petitioners, highlighted the case of another petitioner, surnamed Tseng (曾), who served seven months in prison for a sexual offense and was held for an additional four years in a treatment facility.

  While the risk of recidivism among sex offenders is well known, Tseng’s case showed a clear lack of proportionality, given that he spent seven times as long in psychiatric detention as in prison, Chang said.

  If there is no limit on the mandatory therapy period, people can be locked away for life, regardless of the severity of their crimes, Chang said.

  Deputy Minister of Justice Tsai Pi-chung (蔡碧仲) said that compulsory therapy is a form of rehabilitation rather than punishment, so none of the laws breach the Constitution’s guarantee of personal freedom.

  Tsai also pushed back on the argument that the system was being used injudiciously, saying that of the 9,049 offenders convicted under the act from 2010 to September, only 158, or 1.74 percent, had been ordered into compulsory treatment and most of them have since been released.

  “If the Council of Grand Justices rules that this system is a violation of the Constitution, who will assume responsibility” for the 56 people in therapy? Tsai asked.

  Taiwan is facing a “reckoning” on the issue of sexual offenses and the court should not discuss the impact of such crimes in abstract terms, he said.

  Speaking to reporters after the court hearing, Tsai said that statement was a reference to the furor over the case of a 24-year-old Malaysian student who last week was abducted near her university in Tainan and killed.

  In such cases, the focus should not solely be on the rights of the suspect, but also on the pain caused to the victim and their families, he said, adding that sex offenders should only be released when authorities can be certain there is little risk of recidivism.

  The Council of Grand Justices is required to issue a decision within three months after hearing oral arguments on a petition.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 2

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    Eric Chu, 2 others to be questioned for leading illegal assembly last week

  • 5

    China turns on the charm for Taiwan businesses: study