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.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS