Yesterday, as Indonesia increased security ahead of the execution of the three Islamic militants convicted in the 2002 Bali bombings, a seminar in Taipei brought French and Taiwanese legal specialists together to discuss how Taiwan can continue its path toward abolishing capital punishment.
The carnage wrought by the terrorists behind the bombings, in which 202 people were killed, was an unspeakable crime.
It may seem difficult in this context to argue for the abolition of the death penalty, but the message at yesterday’s forum was clear: The death penalty is a violation of human rights, illegal in all cases under international law.
Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) yesterday attended the forum, which she described as her “duty.”
Wang has repeatedly stated her opposition to the death penalty. She is the third in a line of ministers of justice who have spoken out against capital punishment, making it clear that Taiwan should take the path of the majority of countries that have abolished the penalty in law or in practice.
In the case of the Bali bombers, the uselessness of the death penalty is crystal-clear: No penalty can make reparations for the massive loss of innocent lives that has and will continue to torment the family members of the victims.
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the executions will deter similar crimes, which is one of the most often cited — and often disproved — arguments for capital punishment. On the contrary, the bombers have not repented and see themselves as martyrs, while the Indonesian government is bracing for potential retribution attacks by terrorist networks. The Australian and US embassies, meanwhile, have received bomb threats.
In this case, the death penalty serves no helpful purpose to society and may even increase the wrath of extremists who have no qualms about taking innocent lives.
At yesterday’s forum, a man stood up and told the speakers: “We want real human rights, not fake human rights.”
When a terrible crime is committed, killing the perpetrator amounts to respecting the rights of the victim, he argued.
His opinion reflects one of two main obstacles to moving public opinion in Taiwan and other retentionist countries: the belief that vengeance and justice are one and the same. In a modern justice system, however, revenge has no place.
The other barrier is the belief that the death penalty is necessary for public safety, a claim that collapses under scrutiny.
With the government repeatedly arguing that winning over public support is crucial to abolishing the death penalty, these are the deeply entrenched attitudes that Wang will have to tackle.
The experiences of countries like France, which abolished capital punishment long ago, have a definite role to play in revealing misconceptions about capital punishment.
Although it is unlikely that Taiwan will see legislation any time soon abolishing the death penalty, the Ministry of Justice can, like dozens of other retentionist countries, choose not to execute any of the prisoners on death row.
Taiwan’s last execution was in 2005. In the meantime, interested parties should take an aggressive stance on the issue, educating prosecutors and the public, tackling problems with the judicial process and challenging the assumption that an eye for an eye amounts to justice.
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS