|
This wiki Other pages |
NPUE /
301deathpenaltyhttp://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1203818&lang=eng Ma calls for rational debate on death penalty President Ma Ying-jeou said yesterday that the contentious issue of whether Taiwan should abolish capital punishment needs to be openly debated to reach a reasonable solution in a rational manner. "The controversy may not be resolved any time soon, but if a discussion is not started, we may be mired in emotional arguments forever, which would not be conducive to healthy social development," Ma said while meeting with a group of members of the Prosecutors Association of Taiwan. The meeting came just days after Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng resigned because of an outcry over her refusal to sign off on the executions of any of the 44 convicts on death row and her vow to push for the abolition of the death penalty. In his view, Ma said the question of whether the death penalty should be scrapped can be addressed separately from the issue of whether a moratorium should be imposed on the execution of inmates on death row. "The two issues are not completely correlated and can be dealt with separately," the president said. Ma indicated that some reform initiatives were already being acted upon, including the absence of any crime that exclusively punishable by the death penalty; the declining frequency of judges giving death sentences; and stricter restrictions on parole for those given life sentences. On the other hand, however, education, debate and publicity on matters related to the abolition of the death penalty have been seriously inadequate, Ma said. The Ministry of Justice and other law enforcement authorities should devote more effort to those areas to create more room for rational debate, Ma urged. The United Nations has passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty and while it is not binding, it points to a trend worthy of attention, Ma said. "As Taiwan hopes to take part in more international activities, it cannot afford to ignore or overlook developments in related areas," the president added. Ma also took advantage of the setting to recognize Wang's contributions to judicial reform during her nearly two years in office. Among others, Ma said, Wang's approval of computer monitors in prosecutorial hearings of suspects was a commendable reform that he said could enhance the accuracy of transcriptions of testimony and reduce human error or negligence in the investigative process. On judicial reform issues, Ma said the public's concerns may not necessarily coincide with those of prosecutors and lawyers. For instance, ordinary people generally do not understand key points at issue in proposed bills on speedy prosecutions and the oversight of judges. "What concerns them most are how to establish an exit mechanism for unfit judges or prosecutors and how to upgrade the quality and efficiency of criminal investigations," Ma said. On wiretapping, Ma said he has repeatedly asked intelligence and law enforcement authorities to uphold the principles of the rule of law. "Any wiretapping operation should meet two requirements - it must be necessary and proceed according to the law, " Ma explained, adding that simply being legal was not enough to justify all wiretaps. Prosecutors Association President Chu Nan thanked Ma for agreeing to meet with them and listen to their opinions, and for nominating Deputy Justice Minister Huang Shih-ming to be the country's top prosecutor. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/03/17/2003468212 Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010, Page 8 Think about the victims I would like to respond to Michael Tsai’s letter (Letters, March 14, page 8) on the death penalty. It is filled with fallacious arguments and incredible insensitivity. First, as is customary, he assures us that he empathizes “with families who have suffered great pain,” as if a few empty words are at all helpful to families devastated and destroyed by murderers. Does he think his empty words are any consolation? Instead of concentrating his letter on the victims, he spends most of his time trying to protect killers from rightful execution resulting from a sentence passed by the judicial system, as well as ignoring the wishes of the people of Taiwan, who support capital punishment in overwhelming numbers (over 70 percent). But then, democracy and the rule of law can be so inconvenient when they don’t match Tsai’s ideas. Tsai trots out the old argument about “an eye for an eye” taken from the Old Testament, which he clearly does not understand. The phrase which he considers to be so inhumane is actually meant to protect people. It does not mean that if someone takes your eye, he must lose an eye, as Tsai erroneously believes. It means that an eye is the limit; you cannot take someone’s life for an eye. It was a very humane concept to prevent people from escalating punishment in revenge. He continues: “It goes without saying that life is precious.” Well, why does he say it then? He focuses on the life of criminals, murderers who didn’t share Tsai’s enlightened viewpoint. They took life and thereby forfeited their sacred right to life. The people of Taiwan understand this very clearly and do not need the writer to civilize them. Tsai then asks if executing murderers will “truly heal wounds?” This is a specious question. One could equally ask: Should families who have lost a loved one to a cold-blooded killer have to live with the knowledge that the guilty killer is alive while the innocent victim is dead? Tsai raises another misleading argument that execution is not a deterrent. Could that be because so few murderers are executed and that it takes so long that the public forgets? He prefers “solitary confinement for life” as a “humane” alternative. Tsai is incredibly naive to believe this. If he knew anything about his humane solution, he would never have offered it. Several years ago, prisoners in Italy serving life sentences pleaded to be executed, as they considered their endless incarceration to be too inhumane. Do the hardworking taxpayers of Taiwan want to support killers for a lifetime in prison with all its attendant costs? I think not. CHAIM MELAMED Pingtung http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/03/17/2003468212 Taiwan bound by law Thank you for your editorial on the dangers of executing the innocent (“Opinions differ on death penalty,” March 15, page 8). Hsu Wun-pin (許文彬) seems to think that as long as the death penalty system ensures no innocent people will be executed, nobody will object to the existence of the penalty itself. This is wrong. Many people, including myself and members of the Alliance to End the Death Penalty, do object to the idea of the state using death as a means of punishment. The goal of perfecting the system to avoid all mistakes is a path many US states have taken, resulting in the costs of capital punishment cases far exceeding the cost of lifetime imprisonment. Yet, even with all these expensive legal safeguards, human beings, including judges, may err. Second, in defense of former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), it should be noted that her position has been public knowledge since she was first appointed. The president and the premier certainly knew her opinion and implicitly supported her. However, there was an immediate threat to their political careers after Wang made her comments and so they turned their backs on her. She deserves to be congratulated for her courage and clear principles. EDMUND RYDEN Sinjhuang http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/03/16/2003468138 Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010, Page 8 Thou shalt not kill Referring to the 44 convicts on death row in Taiwan, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) said last week: “I’m glad that the devils can finally go to hell” (“Lawmakers acclaim Wang’s resignation,” March 13, page 3). How fortunate Taiwan is to have government officials who are tactful enough to choose their words wisely while speaking publicly. Lo is either ignorant of, or has forgotten, Jesus’ admonishment in Matthew 7:1 — “Judge not, so that you yourselves be not also judged.” Moreover, before he goes on condemning people to eternal damnation and perdition, Lo had best give some thought to the expression that only madmen and savages profess to know the mind of God. An absolutely crucial fact that one must keep in mind is that of the 44 convicts presently on death row in Taiwan, there is a possibility that a number of them are not guilty of the crimes they were accused of. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the group of men referred to as the “Hsichih Trio” [Editor’s note: The “Hsichih Trio” are not among the 44 individuals on death row]. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), when he was minister of justice, refused to sign the trio’s execution order for lack of evidence, while US forensics expert Henry Lee (李昌鈺) testified in the trio’s favor in court in May 2007. In 2003, the three men were freed after the High Court overturned their sentences. The Taiwan Supreme Court then ordered the High Court to “re-examine” the case. On June 29, 2007, the High Court issued a guilty verdict. It also reinstated the death penalty. Protesters outside the courtroom began to scream that the Taiwanese judicial system was guilty and that the defendants were innocent. One of the defense lawyers, Su You-chen (蘇友辰), said: “The ruling is ridiculous. The judicial system is stained. Judicial reform is bullshit.” Here’s a question we should all be asking ourselves: Would it be preferable to let 100 guilty people go free rather than have one innocent person unjustly imprisoned? I shudder with revulsion, fear and disgust when I think about how many of the 44 convicts currently on death row in Taiwan may be innocent. This is one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty — that there will always be a significant danger that an innocent person will be condemned to death. The danger is all the greater in Taiwan, where the judicial system is stained red with human blood. It is easily manipulated and abused. Far too often, it is used as a “club” to smash the heads of people whose only crime is to have said or done something to anger a powerful and influential politician. It is a disgrace. Former minister of justice Wang Ching-fen (王清峰) said she would rather “go to hell” than order the executions of the 44 convicts on death row. There is no doubt in my mind that Wang is a sincere, courageous woman with the highest ethical principles. However, there is precious little difference between capital punishment and a life term in prison. The former kills quickly, while the latter tortures someone to death slowly. Former president Chen Shu-bian (陳水扁) is facing such torture. Chen, like Wang, was a human rights activist. Does Chen truly deserve life imprisonment? Does no one see the irony of this man who once crusaded for human rights — and through his efforts, saving the lives of those unjustly imprisoned — now himself being horribly victimized with the unspeakable burden of life in prison? MICHAEL SCANLON East Hartford, Connecticut http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/03/14/2003467972 Alternative to death penalty We emphathize with families who have suffered great pain resulting from the murder of a loved one. Thus, it is not difficult to understand why many Taiwanese believe strongly in the justice of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and argue that a life forcefully taken away deserves an equal sacrifice by the murderer(s). It goes without saying that life is precious, and every killing (even an official execution) deserves society’s condemnation. In light of this, I have two questions for Taiwanese society: Will taking away another life truly heal wounds? More importantly, will taking away another life bring back the deceased? I detect two blind spots in the argument that executions serve as a deterrent to crime. First, after a criminal has been executed, deterrence no longer applies to him. On the other hand, if he were kept in solitary confinement for life, he would not be able to harm society anymore; thus life imprisonment would be a better deterrent. Second, to suggest that executions will prevent others from committing murder is naive and misleading. Executions will instill fear in many but not all. Laws familiar to us simply remind us of the price we must pay for our crimes. No law or official action can eliminate crime forever because these social misbehaviors find their origin in our genes. Life imprisonment, in essence, allows criminals to spend the rest of their lives in solitude ruminating on their actions. Life imprisonment is a humane approach to serving justice without unnecessarily shortening another human life; it is an alternative to capital punishment. MICHAEL TSAI Tainan http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/03/13/2003467928 Law demands executions, premier says CONFLICTING VALUES: Premier Wu Den-yih said the justice minister could not carry out her official duties while maintaining her personal opposition to the death penalty By Flora Wang and Vincent Y. Chao Saturday, Mar 13, 2010, Page 1 Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) yesterday defended his quick acceptance of Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng’s (王清峰) resignation over a death penalty row, saying there was no room for any stay of execution while upholding the rule of law. Wang chose to quit because she could not simultaneously uphold her personal opposition to executing any prisoner on death row and fulfill her official duties, Wu said, adding that he respected her decision and thus accepted her resignation. “The Ministry of Justice’s approval and execution of capital punishment should not be considered ‘killing’ if [the sentence for] convicted prisoners on death row remains unchanged and is not controversial after due process has been completed,” Wu said on the legislative floor, adding that until the existing law is revised, death sentences handed down by the courts should be carried out according to the law. Wang, who set off a public uproar on Wednesday with a statement that she would refuse to sign execution orders for the 44 inmates currently on death row, told Wu she would resign at around 10pm on Thursday. He accepted her resignation after reporting it to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). Her resignation came as a surprise to many because she had said earlier on Thursday that Taiwan would become an international laughingstock if the justice minister lost his or her job for supporting the abolition of the death penalty. On Thursday afternoon, the Presidential Office broke its silence on the issue by saying that death penalties handed down must be carried out and that any suspension of executions must follow the law. Wu formally approved Wang’s written resignation yesterday and rebutted legislators’ allegation that Wang was forced to resign. Wu said he added a comment to Wang’s resignation, commending her for “working very hard.” Deputy Minister of Justice Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘), who also submitted his resignation, but had it rejected, has been named acting head of the Ministry of Justice. The interim head had also been nominated by Ma for state public prosecutor-general, pending confirmation by the Legislative Yuan. “Wu formally approved Wang’s resignation, but asked Huang to stay and serve as acting minister,” the Executive Yuan said in a press statement yesterday. One of Wu’s aides said the premier had asked Huang to temporarily take over Wang’s position because he is the only politically appointed deputy minister in the ministry. The other two deputy ministers are administrative deputy ministers and cannot take on the position of acting minister. High-ranking prosecutorial sources said yesterday that it is rare in the nation’s judicial history for the posts of state public prosecutor-general and justice minister to be vacant at the same time. The state public prosecutor-general position was vacated by Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明) who resigned on Jan. 19 immediately after he was impeached by the watchdog Control Yuan for dereliction of duty and lack of integrity. “A major reshuffle in the judicial ranks is unavoidable this year,” the sources said, adding that they forecast Hsieh Wen-ting (謝文定), secretary-general of the Judicial Yuan, and Yen Da-ho (顏大和), head of Taiwan High Court’s Public Prosecutors Office, would be the two top candidates for justice minister. At the Ministry of Justice yesterday, Wang maintained that she took the right stance as she packed her belongings and bade farewell to her colleagues. She said she had no idea her remarks would set off a series of public backlashes. “Administrative officers have a duty and a responsibility to make the law more modern, we must do the right thing and convince the public,” Wang told reporters. “Everybody is trying to force me to carry out the death penalty, to kill people, but I simply just can’t do it. The best choice for me is to leave.” Wang said the lack of support for her was due to public misinformation from media reports, saying that “once the media got a hold [of this issue], there has only been a series of attacks … some of them were borderline personal attacks.” “Whenever we touched on the issue, we drew endless criticism and insults ... it’s difficult for me to get any understanding, and many of [my remarks] were distorted, so I would rather go,” she said. The former human rights activist, who was first appointed following Ma’s inauguration in May 2008, has been a long-time advocate of abolishing the death penalty. Furthermore, Wang is also deeply involved in women’s rights and drug prevention, and was an independent vice presidential candidate in 1996. Huang has also expressed support for abolishing the death penalty, but told the Legislature’s Examination Committee on Monday that he believed the sentences of convicts already on death row should be carried out. Wang’s resignation has led to increasing speculation that Wu could soon announce a Cabinet reshuffle, which Wu dismissed yesterday. Wang is the second Cabinet official to announce his or her resignation this week after Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) tendered his resignation on Monday over a proposal to increase National Health Insurance premiums. ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN, CNA AND AP Also See: Lawmakers acclaim Wang's resignation |