How do you put a price on a human life? You cannot. Although most people would probably agree that, recent events could force us to revisit that supposition.
Fourteen years ago, air force Private Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) was found guilty of murder by a court martial and executed. The government said the legal process was followed to the letter of the law.
However, it was subsequently revealed that mistakes had been made and the same military court determined Chiang was innocent of the crime for which he had been executed.
Again, this was all done in strict adherence to the law the government says.
Last week, the court, again in line with the law, ruled that Chiang’s mother, Wang Tsai-lien (王彩蓮), would receive more than NT$103.18 million (US$3.4 million) in compensation for the loss of her beloved son.
That is how a price is put on a human life, though I doubt anyone would be willing to sell his or her own life for that amount.
When interviewed about the proposed compensation, Wang said that no amount of money could bring back her child. It was heartrending to hear. It is a lot of money, but what does that mean?
The thing that strikes me most is that the killing of her child was done according to the law, but so was changing the verdict to “not guilty,” absolving Chiang of any wrongdoing and leading to the proposed compensation.
The presiding judge said that no further action would be brought against the officers responsible for this terrible error, including former minister of national defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏), who was chief of the Air Force Combat Command at the time, because the statute of limitations for their possible crimes had already expired. Once again this has all been done to the letter of the law.
Is there something I am missing here or is this not meant to be understandable? It seems that Taiwanese just have to grin and bear anything the government decides to do, whether it is right or wrong, as long as the government claims “it was all done to the letter of the law.”
Taiwanese do not have any choice in the matter; we must simply accept what we are given. The law now instructs that the public must foot the bill for this blood money paid to “correct” the injustice done to Chiang and his family.
The Ministry of National Defense now says that it is going to convene a panel of experts to look into how it might seek compensation from the individuals involved, which I am sure is completely in line with the law. However, will the panel conclude — as did the presiding judge — that, according to the law, these people cannot be prosecuted and that the ministry has no recourse in seeking compensation from them? It is certainly possible.
The government’s attitude seems to be that all it needs to do is hold up its hands and say: “Yes, we wrongfully executed Chiang, and that was unfortunate, but we have been as sincere as we can about it and paid out an unprecedented amount in compensation,” and that is that.
If the government fails to clarify who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice, Chiang’s life and death will have been in vain. Such clarification would include addressing the role of the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office, which initially ruled that Chen and another eight individuals could not be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had expired.
In the middle of July, the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors’ Office overruled this decision, saying that the inquiry into whether these individuals were complicit in the wrongful taking of a life and guilty of an abuse of power should continue, to ascertain whether they were guilty of complicity in an individual’s torture, detention and death.
For three months, nothing further has been heard from the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office. What has it been doing all this time? And who is going to pay the compensation? If it is split between all Taiwanese that would come to about NT$5 each. So that is fine, isn’t it? Everyone will just have to eat one less dumpling to cover the cost.
Even more important is the need to reform the system. We have to ask whether the military appeals system can be maintained in its current form, whether there is room for reform or it should be abolished in its present incarnation.
There is a need for reform in the criminal justice system to put an end to the illegal obtaining of confessions from suspects, often through the use of torture.
Would it really be so difficult to enforce a rule that stipulated a lawyer must be present during the interrogation of a suspect? Since it costs the country more than NT$100 million for every person wrongfully executed, why not use that money to make sure having a lawyer present becomes standard practice, so we can avoid a repeat of this unfortunate incident?
However, unlike the fatal error committed by the government in its handling of this case, which it has to be said was completely consistent with its legal obligations, the government does not have any legal responsibility to pursue such reforms.
Strictly speaking, of course, a government does not really have any legal obligation to reform and attempts to do so frequently run up against the lazy insistence that “everything is being done according to the law.”
It is well within the rights of those in power to act according to the law, do nothing about the situation and leave people to fend for themselves. However, with elections approaching, Taiwanese get the chance to use their vote, according to the law of course, to support those candidates who refuse to hide behind the excuse that things are being done according to the law.
This is the best way the nation could pay its respects to Chiang’s memory.
Lin Feng-jeng is a lawyer and executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS