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
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,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
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