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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS