Capital punishment has been around for a long time, but the controversy over the death penalty has never been the cause of such agitation, indignation and passion as it is right now. It started with tense questioning by legislators, followed by incensed reporting in the media and then by impassioned protests from relatives of crime victims. Finally, it led to former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng’s (王清峰) resignation, leaving her Cabinet post vacant. Perhaps the government should place a job ad: “The Republic of China Cabinet seeks to recruit one minister of justice — those unwilling to sign death warrants need not apply.”
At the beginning, this debate had valid implications regarding the law and public interest. The Constitution protects people’s right to life, and this protection can only be limited under certain circumstances. But capital punishment deprives convicts of their right to life, so does it contravene the nation’s most basic law? This is the constitutional aspect of the death penalty debate.
In Taiwan’s judicial system, a case is finalized following the trial in the first instance and two appeals, yet there is a procedural requirement for the minister of justice, who belongs to the executive arm of government, to review cases involving capital punishment and to sign execution warrants only after confirming that there are no doubtful aspects.
Is this procedure intended as a cautionary measure allowing the executive branch to check and balance the actions of the judiciary? This is an argument about capital punishment with regard to political structures. Should a dubious law be enforced? Is a bad law still a law? These are philosophical arguments about capital punishment.
If there is a possibility that a convict’s death sentence may be commuted to life imprisonment, is it permissible to quickly carry out the execution before the sentence can be commuted? This is an ethical argument about capital punishment.
These arguments, be they matters of legal principles or value judgments, are all worthy of discussion, yet the current wave of controversy over the death penalty has quickly fallen from this high plain of debate to a lower level.
Almost overnight, the whole thing became personalized. Victims’ relatives have come out in opposition to abolishing the death penalty because they are unable to escape from their personal trauma. Wang wants capital punishment to be abolished because of her “personal” principles. As to those on death row, it goes without saying that they have wicked “personalities” and have committed unforgivable crimes.
Only if we can get back to treating the matter seriously as an issue of public concern can there be dialogue between people holding different values. Sober discussion about whether to retain or abolish capital punishment could serve to improve the general public’s understanding of the legal system.
Personalized arguments should be set aside. What is important is to change things on the level of social structures and systems.
At present, the only support society gives to victims’ relatives is to offer them the perpetrator’s head on a plate. When victims’ relatives get agitated and talk in extreme terms, we treat them with patience and tolerance and do not offer any criticism. None of this is of any real benefit to victims and their families.
Victims’ protection should include financial support, comfort for psychological trauma and assistance during the course of trials. At present, all victims and their families have to rely on is monetary compensation as is stipulated in the Governing Protection of Victims of Criminal Acts (犯罪被害人保護法). However, exclusion clauses in the law mean that not every victim is entitled to such compensation. Compensation, when given, is a one-off payment, not an annual one, so it is of limited benefit to victims who have lost their ability to work. Psychological support is provided not by the state, but by referral to volunteers of the Association for Protection of Victims of Criminal Acts, who may not be properly qualified.
The trial process also does not include enough protection for victims, who have to appear in court at the same time as those who harmed them. They may have to repeatedly suffer trauma and fear as they appear in court again and again. We still have a long way to go in this respect.
Victim protection is essential for a just society, but in a society that has capital punishment, few among the public give thought of the needs of victims of crime and their families. People get the impression that it is enough to look after them by executing the perpetrator. It is only at times when people are discussing whether to retain or abolish capital punishment that victims’ relatives are pushed into the limelight to back-up the call to keep the death penalty, but they still don’t get the kind of support they really need.
There is no conflict between protecting victims and abolishing capital punishment. On the contrary, abolition could well be an opportune moment to set up a proper system of victim support.
Chang Chuan-fen is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
RSS