On Thursday last week, a 17-year-old surnamed Liu (劉) turned himself in after discharging a modified submachine gun more than 50 times at a closed pawnshop in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城). After investigating the incident, police detained two other teenagers in connection with a previous attack on the same pawnshop on April 10.
The shootings in broad daylight have unnerved the public.
The Criminal Code says that “an offense committed by a person who is under fourteen years of age is not punishable,” while “punishment may be reduced for an offense committed by a person more than the age of fourteen but under the age of eighteen.”
In practice, offenders aged 14 to 18 get largely reduced penalties, and commutations if they turn themselves in. This could be one of the major reasons that, according to crime data, fraud rings and other criminal organizations exploit underage people to commit crimes on their behalf.
Under the Criminal Code, teenagers younger than 14 lack criminal responsibility, while those aged 14 to 18 have limited criminal responsibility.
Those age thresholds are higher than in most other countries. For example, the age of criminal responsibility in the UK was in 1998 lowered to 10, and underage offenders serve their sentences in secure centers for young people. The age of criminal responsibility is 13 in France, and 12 in Ireland and the Netherlands.
In China, the age thresholds for limited and full criminal responsibility were in 2020 set at 14 and 18 respectively. The amendment was drafted in response to a continuous surge in juvenile delinquency and stipulates that children aged 12 to 14 who intentionally kill or cause bodily harm to another person resulting in their death or severe disability due to patently cruel or unusual methods can be charged with full criminal responsibility. In such cases, the Chinese Supreme People’s Procuratorate has to approve the charges.
These examples could become references for amendments in Taiwan.
Taiwanese legislation on juvenile delinquency is modeled after German laws. The Juvenile Justice Act (少年事件處理法) is a special act established for offenders aged under 18. Article 27 sets rules for pre-deliberation and stipulates that juveniles who commit an offense that carries a prison term of up to five years should stand trial in a juvenile court.
The article means that juvenile offenders merely get a slap on the wrist, but it is also in line with the prevention concept laid out in global criminal justice standards.
The only flaw with the act is Article 74, which states that when a young person commits an offense that carries a prison term of up to 10 years, the court can remit the punishment and order protective measures “if a sentence reduced in accordance with Article 59 of the Criminal Code is still too heavy.”
Aside from felonies such as manslaughter or forcing others to commit sexual intercourse, young people are exempt from punishment for most offenses. Such a lenient system could embolden juvenile offenders to commit further crimes, instead of deterring them.
The Juvenile Justice Act’s parameters for pre-deliberation and punishment exemption are too wide, potentially letting off juvenile offenders too easily.
Taiwan’s age of criminal responsibility dates back to the establishment of the Criminal Code in 1935. The regulations should be updated to bring them in line with modern society.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Rita Wang
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
EDITORIAL CARTOON
RSS