I recently read an article published in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper), in which author Dino Wei (魏思源) suggests that life sentences without parole could be a complementary measure to the abolition of the death penalty.
The French penal code was amended in 1994 so that criminals facing life imprisonment are required to wait 30 years before they have the right to apply for parole — the required waiting period had previously been 20 years. This law initially applied only to prisoners who were convicted of raping or murdering children.
However, in 2011, the scope of its application was expanded to include those convicted of killing public officials in the line of duty — such as gendarmes, police officers, soldiers and prison guards.
After a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, a new law was passed in 2016 that expanded the scope of this regulation to include all acts of terrorism — a policy also adopted by the UK.
In reality, it is difficult to imagine that any member state of the Council of Europe — all of which have signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights — would completely strip people sentenced to life in prison of any hope of parole.
The most crucial step to improve existing criminal law is to raise the upper term limits for fixed-term imprisonment and cumulative punishments for multiple crimes. Currently, the upper limit is 15 years for fixed-term imprisonment and a cumulative sentence is 30 years. Taking murder as an example, a judge can only hand down either a fixed-term sentence of 10 to 15 years, life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Now that the death penalty has been effectively frozen, a judge dealing with a serious murderer is left with only two options — a 15-year prison sentence or life imprisonment. A sentence of 15 years for murder would be an insufficient punishment, while life imprisonment might be too harsh a punishment in some situations.
Regarding cumulative sentences for multiple crimes, the Criminal Code treats fixed-term imprisonment and life imprisonment as fundamentally different, operating under the assumption that changes in quantity cannot produce changes in quality. Therefore, for crimes such as repeated sexual assault or child sexual abuse — even if the announced verdict adds up to a cumulative sentence of 100 years — only 30 years of the sentence can be implemented.
Additionally, current law states that first-time offenders must serve at least half of their fixed-term sentence before they may apply for parole. Thus, a prisoner given the maximum 30-year cumulative sentence can apply for parole after only 15 years — an extremely unreasonable outcome. I recommend that the upper limit for fixed-term prison sentences be increased to 30 or 40 years, while the threshold for parole applications of lifetime prisoners remains at about 25 years.
Increasing the threshold for parole applications of lifetime prisoners to 30 years is the equivalent of one 60-year fixed-term sentence. This should be a severe enough punishment to maintain a general preventative function.
Serious offenders are often subject to all kinds of repression and concealment. The public’s ignorance toward prisoners is something of a social custom, along with a collective mentality that prisoners should be kept isolated from society.
Taiwan should consider using different means — such as non-institutional alternative treatment and social prevention — to discourage recidivism and promote recovery. Such measures would be more conducive to developing a balanced environment that encourages social reintegration for offenders while considering the interests of victims.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS