文章分類Article
Constitutional Court | The Continuation of the Death Penalty Debate?
The History of the Death Penalty Debate
The controversy over the death penalty in Taiwan has been a topic of discussion for several decades, touching on multiple aspects such as justice, morality, and human rights, and has continually sparked heated debates in judicial, political, and public spheres. As early as 2001, during the Chen Shui-bian administration, the government began promoting a policy aimed at abolishing the death penalty. At that time, the Minister of Justice publicly supported a gradual abolition and introduced a series of related policy measures, attempting to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment and reduce its application. The core concept of this policy was to protect human rights, particularly to avoid irreversible outcomes caused by judicial errors.
The Ministry of Justice's strategy at that time was to gradually reduce death sentences and promote life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a substitute, aiming to eventually abolish the death penalty. However, despite the policy's inclination toward abolition, many voices in society remained in opposition. Particularly when major criminal cases, such as random killings or child victim cases, occurred, public trust in the judicial system was shaken, leading to strong demands for the reinstatement or strict enforcement of the death penalty to punish offenders and uphold justice for victims.
These criminal cases brought the issue of the death penalty back into the spotlight of public discourse. The divide between civil society and political forces became more apparent, with human rights groups continuing to push for the abolition of the death penalty, arguing that it neither prevents crime nor aligns with human rights protection, while voices supporting the death penalty have also grown louder, claiming it is the only effective punishment for serious crimes. This polarized stance has left Taiwan unable to reach a consensus on the death penalty issue, making it a highly controversial topic to this day.
Main Arguments of Death Penalty Abolition Supporters
Inviolability of Human Rights and Life Abolition supporters argue that life is the most basic right of human beings, and no state or individual has the right to take another’s life. They believe that even in the face of severe crimes, society should handle the situation in a humane manner, rather than resorting to extreme punishment imposed by the state. Death penalty, they claim, is a grave violation of human rights and should be replaced by alternatives, such as life imprisonment without parole, which would protect public safety without violating human rights principles.
Avoiding Judicial Errors and Wrongful Convictions Judicial error is one of the key issues emphasized by abolitionists. No matter how robust the judicial system, it is impossible to entirely eliminate wrongful convictions, and the death penalty, being an irreversible punishment, offers no remedy once executed. Taiwan’s history includes several cases of wrongful imprisonment, such as the Su Chien-ho case, the Cheng Hsing-tse case, and the Hsieh Chih-hung case, some of which involved the execution of innocent individuals. These cases serve as stark warnings to society about the dangers of the death penalty, suggesting that severe crimes should be handled with utmost caution.
Death Penalty Ineffective in Preventing Crime There is no clear evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty. According to various international studies, the crime rates of serious offenses show no significant differences between countries that maintain or have abolished the death penalty. The causes of crime are complex and should be addressed through improvements in social structures, the promotion of crime prevention policies, and reforms in the penal system, rather than relying solely on extreme punishment.
Strengthening Restorative Justice The concept of restorative justice is a key tenet of the death penalty abolition movement. Supporters believe that the death penalty cuts off opportunities for dialogue and reconciliation between offenders and victims or their families. Through restorative justice processes, offenders can pay for their actions and attempt to make amends to the victims’ families, fostering societal reconciliation and justice more effectively than simply taking a life.
Death Penalty and Social Discrimination Some abolitionists emphasize that the death penalty can exacerbate social inequality. They argue that offenders from impoverished, less educated, or socially disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be sentenced to death, reflecting biases and discrimination within the judicial system. Thus, the death penalty not only fails to solve crime problems but also perpetuates social injustice.
International Human Rights Trends With the global rise in human rights awareness, many countries have abolished or halted the execution of the death penalty, viewing abolition as a symbol of civilizational progress. Many death penalty abolitionists believe that Taiwan should align with the international community by joining the ranks of nations that have abolished the death penalty. This would not only meet international human rights standards but also help enhance Taiwan’s image in the global community.
Main Arguments of Death Penalty Supporters
The Need for Justice and Retribution One of the main arguments for supporting the death penalty is the concept of "justice." For many, the death penalty represents fair retribution for heinous acts, particularly for offenders involved in serious crimes like murder, rape, or terrorism. The principle of "a life for a life" is deeply ingrained in the moral beliefs of many, who argue that offenders should pay the ultimate price for their actions, not only to provide justice for victims but also to maintain basic social moral order.
Deterrent Effect and Crime Prevention Some supporters firmly believe that the death penalty serves as a deterrent for certain types of crimes. They argue that as the most severe punishment, the death penalty can make potential offenders hesitate when considering committing a crime due to the fear of death, thereby reducing the occurrence of serious crimes. This preventive effect is viewed as a crucial means of maintaining public safety, especially in the face of increasing violent crime and random killings. Supporters see the death penalty as a necessary and effective tool.
Consolation for Victims and Their Families Supporters also emphasize the psychological consolation that the death penalty provides for victims’ families. For families who have lost loved ones, seeing the offender sentenced to death can give them a sense of justice being served and help alleviate their pain. Many believe that only when the offender is executed can the victims’ families truly find relief, serving as a way to make amends for their loss and uphold justice, often encapsulated in the classic rhetorical question from supporters: "What if it were your family that was killed?"
Necessity of Preventing Recidivism For certain extremely dangerous criminals, life imprisonment alone cannot fully prevent the risk of reoffending. Although life imprisonment can isolate criminals, there is still the possibility of their release through parole or other means, posing a threat to public safety. The death penalty, however, can completely resolve this issue by permanently eliminating the possibility of reoffense, thus ensuring societal safety.
Maintenance of Social Order and Authority Supporters argue that the existence of the death penalty helps maintain the authority of the state and judicial system. In major criminal cases, the public expects the government and judiciary to act swiftly and decisively, especially when dealing with offenders who threaten social stability and public safety. The implementation of the death penalty demonstrates the state’s zero-tolerance attitude toward heinous crimes, reinforcing public trust in the judicial system.
Judicial Yuan Constitutional Interpretation No. 113, Interpretation No. 8
Conditional Constitutionality On September 20, 2024, the long-anticipated Constitutional Court ruling on whether the death penalty is constitutional was released. The justices examined the constitutionality of the death penalty system and offered a view of "conditional constitutionality." The justices concluded that while the death penalty is not unconstitutional in certain specific situations, its application should be limited, particularly in cases involving mental disorders . Furthermore, the interpretation emphasized the necessity of strict trial procedures and the protection of basic human rights for the accused. This interpretation has reignited public debate over the death penalty and is likely to have a far-reaching impact on Taiwan’s future judicial policies. Below is a summary of the key points of the ruling:
Key Ruling Points | Description |
Conditions for Applying the Death Penalty | The death penalty, as the most severe punishment, can only be applied to cases the criminal circumstances are the most serious and the criminal procedure strictly meets the constitutional requirements for due process. Within this scope, it does not violate the constitutional guarantee of the right to life. |
Mental Disorders and Cognitive Impairments | Defendants whose criminal responsibility is significantly affected by mental disorders or cognitive impairments cannot be sentenced to death. Additionally, those who, due to mental or psychological deficiencies, lack sufficient ability to defend themselves during trial cannot be sentenced to death. (Relevant agencies must review and amend the relevant provisions within two years of the ruling's announcement. Before legal revisions are completed, the death penalty cannot be applied to such cases.) |
Procedural Safeguards | In the third instance, mandatory defense counsel must be provided, and oral arguments must be conducted. When a panel of judges delivers a death sentence, it must be unanimous. (Relevant agencies must amend the relevant provisions within two years of the ruling’s announcement in accordance with this ruling. If the law is not revised within the deadline, prosecutorial and judicial authorities must follow this ruling in investigations and proceedings.) |
Mandatory Legal Representation | In the third instance, mandatory defense counsel must be provided, and oral arguments must be conducted. When a panel of judges delivers a death sentence, it must be unanimous. (Relevant agencies must amend the relevant provisions within two years of the ruling’s announcement in accordance with this ruling. If the law is not revised within the deadline, prosecutorial and judicial authorities must follow this ruling in investigations and proceedings.) |
Mandatory Legal Representation | When a prosecutor, judicial police officer, or judicial police suspect that an individual is involved in a crime as defined in the first paragraph of the main article, that individual must have defense counsel present during questioning or interrogation, and the defense counsel may present opinions on their behalf. (Relevant agencies must amend the relevant provisions within two years of the ruling's announcement in accordance with this ruling. If legal revisions are not completed by the deadline, prosecutorial and judicial authorities must act in accordance with this ruling during investigations or interrogations.) |
Confirmation of Execution Ability | Before the death penalty is executed, it must be confirmed that the convict possesses |
The debate over the abolition or retention of the death penalty continues to evolve along with social changes and legal developments. Both the arguments for abolishing the death penalty and those supporting it reflect differing perspectives on judicial fairness and human rights. With the recent interpretation by the justices, the future of the death penalty in Taiwan may move toward stricter application criteria and systemic reforms. The ongoing discussions and potential changes remain a point of focus for all sectors of society.
Reference: Judicial Yuan Constitutional Interpretation No. 113, Interpretation No. 8 [Death Penalty Case]