A tragedy occurred last week when a 15-year-old boy driving without a license in Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖) struck a restaurant, killing three. Furious citizens have called for the death penalty or corporal punishment for the teenager.
While absurd at first glance, the situation’s development provides some explanation as to why people might raise such an impossible proposition.
Although the perpetrator’s father verbally apologized following the incident, he did not attend the memorial ceremonies of the victims, nor did he attempt to compensate their families. Instead, he hired a renowned lawyer to defend his son.
Additionally, several of the perpetrator’s relatives all coincidentally reported to the media that the boy, surnamed Zeng (曾), was always a smart and well-behaved child. They said that he was very cute when he was younger, and that this accident has been a huge blow to his family. However, they shared no sympathy or remorse for the victims.
What is even more bizarre is that after some commentators criticized the bias in these media reports — while making no comments about the child himself — a great number of the articles were reported and removed. Some are speculating as to whether the articles were removed with the help of a public relations firm that might have created fake accounts to report them.
Similar scenarios have occurred in the past — for example, there were previously a large number of fake accounts based in Russia and the Middle East devoted to liking posts about Taiwan People’s Party Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲).
In recent decades, many advanced countries have promoted restorative justice, hoping for a process by which the perpetrators show accountability, engage in self-reflection, sincerely apologize, and adequately compensate the victims of a crime.
Under the premise that criminal procedure is not affected, restorative justice remedies the harm done and helps victims heal their physical and emotional wounds as much as possible, additionally preventing the likelihood of reoffense.
However, genuine self-reflection of perpetrators is the main criterion for the success of this great system. If a perpetrator or their family would rather spend copious amounts of money hiring a big name lawyer to influence the judicial process, or hire a public relations firm to manipulate public opinion, than earnestly compensate the victims, such a system would be impossible to implement.
Instead, it would give rise to radical discourse — like suggesting corporal punishment or the death penalty for minors — or even result in illegal retaliation. We could find ourselves in a tragedy like the one in the movie Seeking Justice, in which everybody only suffers more harm — an outcome that would benefit no one.
The Korean drama Juvenile Justice tells us that the more wealthy and powerful a family, the more likely they are able to hire a renowned lawyer to lighten the sentence of their offending child. In turn, their children are discouraged from examining their own mistakes, and these young offenders are even less likely to take responsibility for their actions in the future.
When children like this become adults, they would inevitably face greater disaster and end up paying an even heavier price. Before a child unfortunately ends up inside juvenile court, their parents must teach them to bear responsibility for their own behavior.
Chen Jun-kuang is an attending physician in the psychiatry department at Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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 President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
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
RSS