Taiwan is no stranger to violent criminals being let off with lenient sentences, with another ridiculous ruling taking place last week.
Hsu Wen-ping (許文炳), who was convicted of brutally murdering a friend and mutilating his body, had a life sentence reduced to 18 years, because he is an alcoholic who was intoxicated when the incident occurred.
The judges said Hsu qualified for a reduced term under Article 19 of the Criminal Code, which governs crimes committed by people with mental disorders and stipulates that “punishment may be reduced ... as a result of an obvious reduction in judgement.”
This is ludicrous. According to the judges’ reasoning, any crimes committed while intoxicated can be excused. Will every alcoholic who commits a crime from now on receive a reduced sentence? Should everyone start downing bottles of whiskey before going out and killing friends? This type of ruling handed down by so-called “dinosaur judges” is so mind-blowing that it would be easy to think that Taiwanese society cares more about criminals than the victims.
A quick search on the Internet will turn up countless similar cases, many of them taking place this year.
In April, a man who raped a mentally disabled girl avoided jail time, because the court “took mercy on him” as he was willing to reach a settlement with the family, admitted his crime, appeared to be remorseful and had no prior convictions.
In June, a man who raped his stepson received only a four-year jail term, because he paid the child to not cry during the act and allegedly did not use force. Simply unbelievable.
There is a limit to compassion. Taiwan does not have a public sex offender registry because of opposition from “human rights groups” when the law was being drafted a decade ago. There are so many oppressed and suffering people in Taiwan who need help, and this is evidence that some would prefer to fight for the rights of criminals.
Obviously, the public is fed up with this situation, as evidenced by an online petition urging the government to punish drunk drivers, sex offenders and child abusers by caning that surpassed the 5,000-signature threshold that warrants an official response.
Without endorsing this type of eye-for-eye punishment, the petition is a clear indicator that the nation’s judicial system is broken and that people are resorting to desperate proposals. There is obviously something wrong, as evidenced by a five-time drunk driving offender who two weeks ago received an eight-month jail sentence, which was considered serious. In the four previous convictions, he was never “punished” for his misdeeds, as each time his sentence was commuted to a fine or community service. The eight-month sentence is pretty much a slap on the wrist for the five-time offender and is unlikely to cause a change in his behavior.
Does Taiwan really need to resort to caning people? With rulings such as these, it might have no other choice. Most disappointing perhaps is the government’s response to the petition, with Premier William Lai (賴清德) saying that Taiwan is a democratic and law-abiding nation where human rights are valued. Yes, Taiwan is a nation that values human rights so much that it protects the identity of sex offenders, condones drunk driving, lets rapists go free and reduces the sentence for drunken murderers.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS