|
Right to life versus judicial justice
By Lee Yung-ran 李永然
Tuesday, Apr 06, 2010, Page 8
Former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) strongly supports the
abolishment of the death penalty and recently released an open letter in which
she discussed her ideals about the abolishment of capital punishment, stating
that abolishing the death penalty is a way of guaranteeing the “right to life.”
Wang’s staunch support for abolishing the death penalty and the views she
expressed about how the death penalty should be suspended caused an immediate
stir in public opinion. Many argued that this would violate the principle of
conducting administrative affairs in a legal fashion, and was another
contributing factor to Wang’s resignation.
Even after her resignation, capital punishment has remained a highly contentious
issue, with different sides fighting back and forth over seemingly conflicting
issues like the “right to life” and “judicial justice.”
Abolishment of the death penalty is a trend in human rights that is spreading
around the world and is an idea based on principles including the right to life
and universal human rights.
However, if we objectively look at Taiwan, where more than 74 percent of the
population are in favor of retaining the death penalty, we can see that most
people consider it the best possible deterrence to would-be criminals. In
addition, people have since ancient times viewed retributive justice as
appropriate and proper. The idea that murderers should pay for their crime with
their own life is deeply ingrained in people’s minds, while some also believe
the death penalty offers a form of compensatory comfort to the victim’s family.
It remains to be seen whether the 44 confirmed death row inmates will be
executed according to current legislation now that newly appointed Minister of
Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) has taken office.
Point 4 of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which Taiwan approved and ratified last year, states: “Anyone sentenced
to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.
Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all
cases.” It will be interesting to see how the government handles those sentenced
to death who apply for amnesty according to the covenant. This is something all
government departments concerned should think about carefully.
For the moment, while the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is still considering the
gradual abolishment of the death penalty, the only way to handle the legal aid
procedures that will be required by those on death row is to amend and expand
the Pardon Act (赦免法) and establish an appeals committee to handle related cases
and set up a detailed set of deliberation procedures. Otherwise, if the MOJ
continues to carry out the death penalty while the debate about the death
sentence is still raging, it would not only be in conflict with the two recently
signed international covenants on human rights, but would also indicate an
extreme lack of resolve on the government’s behalf when it comes to putting the
two covenants into practice.
The MOJ has been promoting and establishing a task force to research the death
penalty and its abolition (逐步廢除死刑研究推動小組), as well as planning other measures
that could lead to the abolishment of capital punishment, such as improving
public security, offering better protection to victims, alternatives for
punishment once the death sentence is abolished, improving prison and
rehabilitation management and disseminating information about the abolishment of
the death penalty to the public. However, it is preferable if the gradual
abolishment of capital punishment can be achieved on the basis of social
consensus and once all doubts surrounding its abolishment have been dispelled.
Before alternatives are established, however, the government really needs to pay
attention to the social environment and make gradual adjustments in accordance
with public opinion while also striving to balance “the right to life” and
“judicial justice.”
Whether to keep or abolish the death penalty is a complex issue. Apart from
showing concern for the right to life of those sentenced to death, the
government needs to pay attention to the rights of the victims and consider the
feelings of the victim’s family while also finding suitable substitutes for the
death penalty. One option the government can consider as a substitute is life
imprisonment.
The death penalty is not something that can be abolished overnight. Time is
needed before a social consensus on abolishing the death penalty is reached.
Taiwan still has a lot of work to do concerning education and the dissemination
of information regarding the abolishment of capital punishment. If the
government views the ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty as a path to
judicial reform and a way of putting the ideals of human rights into practice,
then it should draw up a complete set of measures and alternatives based on the
current state of Taiwan’s social environment and developments in the rule of
law, come up with supplementary measures and alternatives, increase the quality
of education about human rights and correct the prevalent social attitude that
people who have done wrong deserve ultimate retribution. This is the only way we
can begin to gain public consensus on the abolishment of the death penalty and
change the nation for the better.
Lee Yung-ran is a lawyer and president of the Chinese
Association for Human Rights.
|
