What Abolishing the Death Penalty Is / Is Not

Recently, some commentators argued that Taiwan's “zero death penalty” since 2006 is a “beautiful accident,” highlighting the many contradictions and struggles within the government's capital punishment policy. Because controversies surrounding the death penalty are complex, they require deep reflection, and overly simplistic statements easily lead to misunderstandings.

What “is” the abolition of the death penalty? First, according to the historical experiences of advanced nations, abolition typically begins with the Ministry of Justice completely halting executions or the President granting a pardon. This sparks debate among civil society on both sides. Over time, civil society may discover that its “reliance' on the death penalty is not as high as it once “imagined,” ultimately leading to the legal 'result” of abolition. If we can all recognize that suspending executions is a “necessary process,” we can only humbly ask everyone to give the government and the people a little more time—whether it be 'careful review' or 'intentional delay,” perhaps this is precisely the “moment for critical reflection” that Taiwan needs. Moreover, precisely because of the special nature of the death penalty—which can only be executed after the issuance of an “order” by the Minister of Justice—this special design in criminal procedure is very similar to the President's power of pardon. Both are based on the consideration of mutual checks and balances between the judicial and executive branches. Clearly, the Minister of Justice regarding matters of death penalty execution is by no means merely a rubber stamp with no room for discretion. Second, the abolition of the death penalty asserts that the 'state' cannot “murder the people” under any pretext. It stems simply from the view that the “death penalty” is a 'flawed' penal measure (particularly due to the possibility of 'wrongful convictions'; juxtaposed with the data showing the Taiwanese public's consistently low trust in the judiciary, hoping that judges 'should sentence more people to death' is truly paradoxical). Therefore, for various reasons, it demands that the “state” “remove” the “option” of the “death penalty” from the “state's list of penalties.”

Consequently, the abolition of the death penalty does “not” mean acquitting and releasing defendants (what is far more likely is life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment; incidentally, the latest poll by Academia Sinica shows that over fifty percent of the public supports replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment). Nor does it demand that people “unconditionally forgive these individuals” (including the general public and victims), and even less is it an “infringement on the human rights” of “victims and their families.” Undeniably, “victims and their families” have indeed suffered harm, especially in cases where the legal interest of life is deprived and the dead cannot be brought back to life. Any rhetoric or practice concerning “compensation or healing' for victims' families may ultimately be entirely useless and perfunctory. The author does not dare to speak rashly on whether shooting a defendant is “entirely” incapable of “slightly comforting” the families, because as long as people continue to believe this is a “realization of justice,” perhaps such a “belief” can bring a measure of “satisfaction of justice.”

However, what must be emphasized here is that, aside from slightly different “visions” of “justice,” there is actually no great difference or conflict between abolitionist groups and victim support groups: both focus their demands on the “state government,” requiring the state to “severely punish” heinous criminals (though one side believes “severe punishment” means the death penalty, while the other believes 'severe punishment' may mean life imprisonment); and both demand that the state “care for” victims' families. Far more important than carrying out executions is actually providing greater substantive spiritual, psychological, material, and economic care—even starting from the criminal trial proceedings rather than allowing people to suffer further harm in cold legal procedures while letting the state assume that 'executing the death penalty' equates to “fulfilling its duty”!

※ Published in: Apple Daily / Apple Daily Opinion