The New Taipei City District Court recently handed down sentences in an on-campus throat-slashing murder of a ninth-grade student that was committed by two schoolmates on Christmas Day last year. The male perpetrator was sentenced to nine years and the female instigator to eight years in prison. The decision sparked outrage from the victim’s father, who criticized the judge for being too lenient toward the perpetrators, questioning how a murder sentence could be lighter than one for corruption.
Let us invite the judge to a game of empathy for this case.
Dear judge, do you really think the victim’s father can calmly accept your decision? If so, what do you think might be the reason? Is it because both perpetrators are minors? Is it because being “underage” inherently suggests a capacity for reform, even if they intentionally committed murder, and that eight to nine years would be sufficient time for them to fully rehabilitate?
Even if this belief is widely accepted, for the judgement to convince the victim’s father and the general public that it is fair, well-considered and supported by evidence, the perpetrators would need to demonstrate clear and discernible changes in their attitudes and behavior. Only then might the victim’s family feel a sense of relief and be willing to consider giving them “a chance for redemption.”
Be honest, judge — that is the kind of recognition you expect your judgement to receive. However, the real challenge lies in how to achieve it, does it not?
The potential for rehabilitation in juvenile offenders should be based on objective, observable actions rather than unverified assumptions.
Why should it be assumed that minors are inherently more reformable than older adults? Or that female offenders have a greater capacity for change than their male counterparts? Why should an offender with dependent children be presumed more capable of reform than one without? Similarly, should a crime be judged more harshly, because the victim left behind young children as opposed to adult children? Such reasoning is truly mind-boggling, is it not?
These are all biased assumptions, whether they are based on age, gender or parental status. In sum, leniency in sentencing should be grounded in evidence of genuine remorse and positive change, not in stereotypes or preconceived notions.
Since the court’s ruling implies that the two offenders have the potential to reflect on their actions and reform during their time in detention, why should the victim’s family not be directly involved in this process?
The Judicial Yuan in around 2010 began exploring the introduction of restorative justice into the judicial system, especially in handling juvenile crimes. Although the results have been mixed, there have been some valuable and enduring achievements.
The restorative justice process not only emphasizes serving a sentence, but also requires the offender to take full responsibility for their actions, apologize, compensate the victim’s family, and show genuine repentance and transformation. That becomes direct evidence of whether they truly have the potential to change. In other words, with the advent of restorative justice, an offender who refuses to engage in dialogue, apologize, acknowledge their wrongdoing or make amends during the restorative process could revert to a traditional judicial approach.
What does this imply? Each retreat back to the traditional system indicates the offender’s refusal to reform, suggesting the need for a heavier sentence.
Thus, under the framework of restorative justice, the willingness to take responsibility can be seen as progress in the process, not necessarily a prerequisite. After all, the victim is already deceased, and no amount of punishment can bring them back to life.
Given this reality, would inviting the victim’s family to accept a restorative justice process be an additional burden on their grief, or could it offer a path forward? It depends on the perspective. No sentence, no matter how severe, can restore the victim’s life, but if the offender could be genuinely reformed through restorative justice — gaining a renewed understanding of the meaning and value of life — then it could create a profoundly different outcome.
So, why not take a step back and think rationally with an open mind? Instead of allowing judges to freely make decisions based on their own biases and find reasons to spare a death row inmate, why not, with the help of professional mediators, allow the offender to rediscover the value of life under the watchful eyes of the victims’ families?
In this case, the victim’s father might be encouraged to opt for restorative justice as a way to address his son’s case. Rather than becoming trapped in an endless cycle of appeals and leaving the decisionmaking power solely to the judges, why not seek the restorative justice mechanism that has been promoted for years by the Judicial Yuan as a way to deal with such a difficult case? It would put the power of judgement firmly in the hands of those who are most directly affected.
Ideally, every death row inmate should be required to undergo a restorative justice process before being eligible for any commutation of their sentence. The abolition of the death penalty would then result in a practical and meaningful outcome of offenders’ efforts to earn the forgiveness and acceptance of the victims’ families.
This way, the call for the abolition of the death penalty could evolve from a mere concept into a form of criminal justice reform that withstands social scrutiny and merits our utmost pursuit.
Chu Jou-juo is a professor in the Department of Labor Relations at National Chung Cheng University.
President Jimmy Carter, who turned 100 years old this month, has not been highly thought of in Taiwan since his 1978 decision to derecognize Taipei as the seat of the “Republic of China.” But with a half-century’s hindsight, President Carter’s derecognition of the ROC, viewed together with his straightforward diplomacy to preserve the full substance of America’s relations with Taiwan, can now be seen in a far more positive light, especially when compared to his predecessors, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. In considering Carter’s decisions to recognize the People’s Republic of China as the “sole legal government of China” and break
Public health is one of Taiwan’s greatest strengths. Its National Health Insurance was already one of the best single-payer systems in the world, ensuring that everyone has coverage while staying nimble in the face of financial challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic was a chance for the world to see Taiwan’s full public health apparatus at work. Officials caught wind of a strange virus circulating in China and jumped to screen and then stem the flow of travelers before the word “coronavirus” even made headlines. It was one of the only countries in the world to escape widespread transmission before vaccines were distributed,
Four days after Double Ten National Day, China announced a new round of military exercises around Taiwan titled “Joint Sword-2024B.” As the name implies, Monday’s exercises are a follow-up to its “Joint Sword-2024A” exercises in May, which were ostensibly a response to the content of President William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration speech, but, as the title suggests, were intended to routinize large-scale military exercises around Taiwan. International observers in general viewed Lai’s National Day speech as restrained and measured. “Lai’s speech demonstrated restraint, refraining from breaking new ground, repeating well-known positions,” Council on Foreign Relations research fellow David Sacks said. These exercises
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce on Oct. 12 announced that it would consider adopting further measures in response to Taiwan’s trade barriers on certain goods from China, based on the findings of an investigation it launched late last year. The measures could include tariffs or other forms of economic pressure. The announcement is yet another political move by Beijing that is more declarative than substantive. The timing was not coincidental, as it came shortly after President William Lai (賴清德) delivered his first Double Ten National Day speech after taking office on May 20, which was moderate on the cross-strait relationship,