On Sept. 20, the Constitutional Court ruled that the death penalty is constitutional, but the scope of its application would be restricted.
In the ruling, the court said that no one should be sentenced to death or executed if they have a mental disorder or other mental issue that results in an inability to understand that they were committing a crime, an inability to defend themselves during trial or an inability to endure punishment.
Although this is in line with the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there is controversy due to fears that claiming a mental disorder could be exploited as a loophole to escape from the death penalty.
It is particularly alarming to the legal community that the exemption also applies to defendants with mental disorders during their trials.
This ruling therefore brings the issue of forensic psychiatric evaluations to the forefront. However, there are two main problems with how these evaluations are conducted.
First, evaluations carried out by different hospitals’ psychiatric medical teams might come up with different results. Consequently, appealing for re-evaluation has become a litigational opportunitty for both the prosecution and the defense, which not only wastes time and money, but also prolongs the process.
Second, fewer hospital teams are willing to take on cases for major criminal trials.
Prosecutors and judges should identify the need for forensic psychiatric evaluation as soon as possible. Forensic psychiatric evaluation is often about identifying the suspect’s mental state at the time of the crime. The longer you wait, the more difficult it is to be done properly.
In the 2019 murder of railway police officer Lee Cheng-han (李承翰), who was stabbed to death on a train at Chiayi Station by a man surnamed Cheng (鄭), the forensic psychiatric evaluation for the first hearing was conducted three months after the tragedy, which was relatively fast. However, the evaluation for the second hearing was not done until 13 month after the killing, which made the evaluation more difficult. Despite this, the judge at the second hearing decided to accept the later evaluation.
In addition to the psychiatric community’s efforts to continue improving professional training in psychiatric evaluation methods, the judicial authorities should expand the scope of inpatient evaluation and provide a sufficient supporting system that includes funding, safety and security.
Finally, the government should review the current practice in which the evaluation for major cases is conducted by a single hospital (with a team consisting of specialist doctors, psychologists, social workers). It should instead consider inviting experts to set up a forensic psychiatric evaluation committee.
Regarding the second problem, forensic psychiatric evaluation is originally a professional affirmation and social responsibility for psychiatrists. However, over the years, the psychiatric evaluation for major cases has become such a nightmare for psychiatrists that they often try to avoid it as much as possible.
In the case of the doctor who undertook the first psychiatric evaluation for the 2019 Chiayi railway police killing case, when the first-hearing judge accepted the psychiatric evaluation and issued a not-guilty verdict, the doctor was criticized by the public as much as the judge. He even faced merciless attacks when he testified in court during the first and second trials.
Due to the strategies of the prosecution and defense, the expertise of a professional witness was not respected, and the doctor was vilified and personally humiliated. Given this social stigma, who would be willing to accept responsibility for conducting a psychiatric evaluation of defendants for major cases?
The Constitutional Court’s ruling would make the evaluation of mental disorders that occur during or after the trial more demanding and more difficult in the future. This is something members of the public should bear in mind, and which the government needs to address.
Lin Jin-jia is a psychiatrist.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS