On April 23, the Constitutional Court began deliberating the death penalty. Whether it is constitutional is to be determined by the end of July at the earliest.
One Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator said that nearly 80 percent of people in Taiwan oppose abolishing the death penalty and revealed the names of the nine chief justices who are in support of abolishing it.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said that abolishing the death penalty should depend on the social consensus.
How people view this issue should be taken into consideration as well.
Even lawmakers from the same party differ on whether to retain or abolish the death penalty.
Although his party supports abolition, DPP Legislator Wang Shih-chien (王世堅) said that it is equivalent to depriving victims of their right to seek justice. Nobody outside a legal or murder case is qualified to forgive an offender on behalf of a victim.
Issues pertaining to the death penalty have drawn much attention among the public and have led to severe divisiveness and conflicts between supporters and opponents.
Most candidates during election season keep their mouths shut regarding this topic for fear of losing votes if anything they propose does not align with the electorate’s sentiments.
Some candidates even take advantage of death penalty issues to attack their political opponents.
The issues and relevant problems are highly associated with criminology.
Different criminologists say whether certain facts are tied to moral judgements depends on different interpretational stances.
DETERRENCE
Penalties are used as a form of deterrence. It is essential that punishments and their proportionality increase the possibility of deterring would-be criminals or copycats through fear of punishment.
REHABILITATION
The biggest purpose of a punishment is to make offenders turn over a new leaf and start behaving in a better way.
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Retributive justice proponents believe that whether a person has committed a crime, and the degree of their criminal behavior is a matter of morality.
People in Taiwan have not reached a consensus on the death penalty; human rights and mainstream opinion conflict with one another.
How can a compromise be reached? What could be more important than human rights?
Taiwanese should take the two questions into consideration and have a more meaningful and critical conversation on the issue.
The death penalty has been much discussed in Taiwan for a long time.
In 1990, Interpretation No. 264 — which says the death penalty is constitutional — sparked debate among supporters and opponents of the capital punishment. Interpretation No. 476, issued in 1999, also determined the death penalty to be constitutional.
Before the justices decide on the constitutionality of the death penalty, people should do nothing but respect them and the spirit of judicial independence and the rule of law.
However, the Judicial Yuan is still responsible for reviewing the topic of abolishing the death penalty, clarifying whether people who commit certain crimes should be given a death sentence or not after its constitutionality is determined.
Knight Chang is a political worker and doctor of education.
Translated by Hsieh Yi-ching
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS