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
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s
A 10-year-old Japanese schoolboy was stabbed to death last week in the Chinese city of Shenzhen. Although Beijing called it “an isolated incident that could happen in any country,” the tragedy is widely viewed as a cautionary tale of the consequences of the rise of ultranationalism and xenophobia in China, which has worsened as its economy deteriorates. The suspect is a 44-year-old unemployed Chinese man. The stabbing occurred on Sept. 18 — the sensitive anniversary of the “918” incident of 1931, which is commemorated in China as the start of the Japanese invasion of northeast Manchuria. Chinese officials and state media
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been pushing nationalist rhetoric and xenophobic education, and now this has led to tragedy. On Wednesday last week — the 93rd anniversary of the Mukden Incident, when Japan launched its invasion of Manchuria — a 10-year-old Japanese boy living in Shenzhen was stabbed to death on his way to school. This is the second time this year a Japanese citizen has been attacked in public in China. In addition to the attacks on Japanese residing in China, five US college teachers were injured in a knife attack in June. These attacks show a surge of