Today, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court issued its ruling on the Death Penalty Constitutionality Interpretation Case (Constitutional Court ruling number 8 in Year 113 of the Republic of China). The Court found the death penalty constitutional on the grounds of achieving the deterrent function of criminal law and ensuring just retribution. However, the Constitutional Court also instructed that more comprehensive procedural safeguards should be established to ensure due process for death penalty cases. Improvements in the procedural safeguards include (a) defense counsel should be present during the investigation phase for all suspected crimes that may lead to death penalty; (b) defense counsel should be mandatory for death penalty third instance cases; (c) the death sentences must be reached unanimously in each instance of courts; and (d) death penalty should not be sentenced or executed towards people who has mental disorders or mental deficiencies that makes them unable to act according to his judgment during the act of crime, during the litigation procedure, or during the execution procedure. 

In response to the ruling, Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) makes the following statement:

JRF expresses our regret regarding the decision rendered by the Constitutional Court. The Court's ruling stems from the requirement, based on international conventions, to restrain the government's punitive power when criminal acts do not reach the most severe degree. The court therefore reaffirmed that the death penalty should be restricted to cases involving "the most serious crimes" as a means of criminal sanction. Whereas in terms of judicial proceedings, given that the death penalty represents the most severe form of criminal sanction, it necessitates the most rigorous procedures to ascertain the facts of the crime and ensure due process is indisputable.

However, among the 37 parties involved in this constitutional interpretation case, Wang Xinfu and Qiu Heshun are victims of wrongful convictions resulting from problemetic legal procedures (including torture of defendants or witnesses, absence of the defendant's fingerprints on the murder weapon, disappearance of recorded testimony, etc.). We deeply regret that the Constitutional Court failed to address these issues in this ruling.

We believe that social debates surrounding the abolition or retention of the death penalty will not cease following this ruling. On the contrary, the government should no longer resort to executing criminals as a means to alleviate public anxiety over serious criminal offenses. Instead, the government must directly confront the core issues at hand.

The Taiwanese government should seize the opportunity to conduct a more comprehensive study of the root causes of serious crimes and strengthen the construction of social safety nets. It is time to truly begin understanding how a living person becomes what society perceives as a “monster,” and to genuinely face and explore ways to prevent these tragedies from recurring.

We believe that the Ministry of Justice, as the primary authority for legal administration and criminal policy of the nation, should provide detailed annual reports to the public on the current state of public security and the prevention of serious crimes. For example, this may include: establishing a database for major criminal cases; analyzing statistics and causes of serious criminal cases; compiling progress and results of ongoing cases; and summarizing the status of cases under execution. Beyond reiterating condemnation and zero tolerance for serious offenses, more proactively, the Ministry should also study relevant risk factors. It should implement policies to reduce systemic factors that lead to the emergence of perpetrators, or issue warnings to potential victims about risk awareness.

We hereby urge the Taiwanese government to take up the responsibility to take systematic actions in analyzing the root causes of major criminal cases, and in case tracking, crime prevention, and the compensation and care for victims' families. We call for proactive measures in each of these areas to ensure a more comprehensive and effective approach to addressing and preventing serious crimes.

Press Contact

Contact us in English: Grace Huang ([email protected])
Contact us in Mandarin: Elvin Lu ([email protected])