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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS