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
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned