The Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the dispute over whether to preserve or abolish the death penalty triggered various reactions. This is a normal feature typical of democratic countries and one that should be supported.
Authoritarian dictatorships often implement draconian laws and abuse the death penalty, but their citizens do not dare speak out. Whether praise or criticism, the coexistence of positive and negative criticism should be regarded as encouragement for the judicial progress in Taiwan.
When it comes to children’s struggles with academic work, some parents scold them while others praise them — all with progress in mind.
Similarly, proponents and opponents of the death penalty have their criticisms — some believe it is immoral, while others see it as acceptable under certain circumstances.
Even among critics of the death penalty, there are those who are glad it was not abolished and reluctantly accept it.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the inherent dignity of the equal and inalienable rights of all people. To protect the highest guiding principle of human rights, Taiwan was one of the declaration’s original signatories.
The following misconceptions surrounding the issue of preservation or abolition of the death penalty must be addressed:
First, before the UK abolished the death penalty in 1998, a group of academics traveled to the US to conduct investigations in every state. Their goal was to compare the positive and negative effects of the death penalty on public safety, and they were forbidden from drawing any conclusions or providing recommendations.
The group found that in US states that had abolished the death penalty, public safety improved. In states that restored the death penalty, however, public safety did not necessarily improve. That is, the death penalty had no direct positive correlation with public safety. This led the group to disobey their instructions and recommend that the death penalty be abolished.
Most EU countries have abolished the death penalty — and not without evidence.
Second, public opinion changes with trends and political competition. Most people believe that those who commit heinous crimes should not be given a place in society, that only through their death can justice be brought to their victims. Victims’ families advocate for perpetrators to be sentenced to death, while perpetrators and their families hope to escape it.
Third, many religions assert that heaven grants the virtue of a good life. Buddhism and Taoism oppose taking life, even avoiding eating animals. The sixth of the 10 commandments in Christianity rejects murder, thereby opposing the death penalty. In the US, some Christians are against killing and have the right not to perform military service, or to serve in medical roles only.
However, more secular views wish to eliminate evil, arguing that heinous criminals who commit evil acts should forever be kept apart from society so they no longer pose a danger to it — they believe, therefore, that preserving the death penalty is a must.
Fourth, many human rights experts and academics oppose the death penalty. One of the main goals of Amnesty International, for example, is to oppose capital punishment and torture. Important figures in law enforcement, such as the first director of the FBI, John Edgar Hoover, supported the death penalty, while wardens at maximum security prisons in the US tend to oppose it. Everyone has their own opinion.
Countries that have preserved the death penalty are much like Taiwan in that various positions on the issue have led to endless public disputes.
Although the Constitutional Court preserved the death penalty, its resolution incorporated limitations and reduced its scope. This did not satisfy everyone. However, from a neutral perspective, it provides a way forward for further improvements to the death penalty.
Throughout the 228 Incident, the White Terror era and the period of martial law in Taiwan, many people were unjustly executed. This was abuse of the death penalty. Progress was made in 2006 with the abolition of the mandatory death penalty. Now, further restrictions have been placed on the death penalty to prevent unjust deaths that do not serve the interests of public safety.
Opponents of the death penalty would continue to work toward an ideal society free of capital punishment, while proponents of preserving the death penalty would examine its pros and cons in search of suitable alternatives.
Just as people are “destined to die once, and after that to face judgement,” those who deserve death but escape it, fail to repent and reoffend would face their final judgement after death.
Conversely, political victims who are unjustly put to death would find that their creator rectifies the situation, compensating them with eternal life and good fortune.
This is what it means for good and evil to be rewarded. In democratic countries, proponents and opponents of the death penalty share contempt for evil. It is just that people who support the death penalty believe that public safety must be maintained and justice sought for victims.
Those who oppose the death penalty believe that people do not have the right to kill others, and there is no reversing the death penalty for someone who is unjustly executed or denied an opportunity to repent.
These assertions are well-intentioned and come from a place of love for country, society and humanity, so both sides should respect and encourage one another, continuing to cherish human life and human rights.
This serves as a tribute to all of the justices at the Constitutional Court, including those who recused themselves.
Stephen Lee is an attorney at law, former president of Taiwan Human Rights Association and Chairman of Amnesty International Taiwan Section.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
RSS