A 15-year-old boy surnamed Tseng (曾) from Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖) illegally drove his grandfather’s sports utility vehicle on the evening of Oct. 17 and crashed into a roadside eatery, killing three and injuring two. Such a serious incident, along with the fact that the sentence for young people under the age of 18 can be reduced by half according to the Criminal Code, triggered a public outcry.
This case is about a negligent act that caused multiple deaths and injuries. According to Article 55 of the Criminal Code, which regulates sentences for concurrent offenses, an act subject to more than one criminal sanction shall be penalized by only the most severe among the individual sentences.
According to Article 276 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for a negligent death is five years in prison. Although there were multiple instances, Article 55 means that the maximum sentence is only five years, which would then be reduced to two-and-a-half years in the case of a minor. The punishment is obviously disproportionate to the crime.
A similar case involved Lee Yi-hsiang (李義祥), the main suspect in the Taroko Express crash that killed 49 and injured 213 in 2021. He was sentenced to only five years in prison, the maximum penalty for negligent homicide, which also raised public concerns about the punishment not fitting the crime.
The Executive Yuan has proposed amendments to Article 183 of the Criminal Code, which relates to the crime of overturning and destroying a vehicle, and Article 276, which regulates the crime of negligent homicide, adding provisions to increase the punishment for those who cause the death of three or more people due to gross negligence.
Despite the good intention, the bill failed to pass in the Legislative Yuan due to objections from a majority of legal experts.
Another attempt to revive the amendment was made last year after a blaze at a golf ball factory owned by manufacturer Launch Technologies Co in Pingtung County killed nine people and injured more than 100. However, it also failed to pass.
The Criminal Code is meant to protect our social norms and is the last line of defense for fairness and justice. It must keep up with the times.
The century-old predecessor of the current Criminal Code is the Qing Dynasty’s New Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1911 when vehicles were not as large and fast as they are now, and the types of crimes also differed greatly from the modern era due to changing social lifestyles.
Taiwan is a small and densely populated island with plenty of people lacking awareness of proper behavior. A negligent act could easily cause multiple deaths and injuries.
The ruling and opposition parties should put aside the useless disputes in the Legislative Yuan over whether to abolish the death penalty. Instead, they should communicate and coordinate on amending the Criminal Code to address serious negligent crimes as soon as possible.
When it comes to juvenile criminal trials, Taiwan’s Criminal Code has long been based on German law. German legislators believe that because the juvenile court is a professional court division, it should not be solely down to the judge to decide what kind of punishment meets the educational needs.
Instead, experts in education, psychology, sociology, psychiatry and other professions should be involved in the decision process. It is therefore necessary to establish a comprehensive system of expert participation before the juvenile criminal law can become an “education law.”
Establishing a system for juvenile criminal trial participation should not be difficult, given Taiwan’s society and legal system, including the experience of the citizen judge system that was launched two years ago.
The juvenile criminal court would be the first to establish expert participation in trials. Other professional court divisions, such as military courts, family courts and commercial courts, could then follow suit.
This would make Taiwan’s legal system more complete and in line with the trends in other advanced countries.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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.
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
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.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS