What the Rule of Law Rejects Is Cruelty

Yesterday (June 12), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) held a press conference titled "Taiwan Makes the Death Penalty More Cruel," released the "Taiwan Death Penalty Investigation Report," and proposed 46 concrete recommendations to the government. Among them, what most surprised and perplexed the FIDH investigators was that death row inmates in Taiwan are required to wear heavy leg irons indefinitely. This practice is not only unnecessary but also clearly violates the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

That same day, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) immediately published a press release online (http://www.moj.gov.tw/) to offer clarifications and emphasize that: the application of restraints for "protection" is implemented upon discovering emotional instability and a risk of escape or suicide, rather than being used as a "punishment," and therefore does not violate UN standards.

Furthermore, the application of restraints must be reported to the court or prosecutor for approval; relevant circumstances must also be reported to the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office on a monthly basis. The MOJ further emphasized: "There is currently no situation where all defendants sentenced to death are fitted with restraints!"

While we affirm the MOJ's prompt response to the investigation report, we can hardly agree with anything further in the aforementioned statements.

First, pursuant to Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Detention Act, restraints shall not be used unless there are "sufficient facts showing that there is" a risk of violence, escape, or suicide. As the MOJ stated, the use of restraints is for "protection" rather than "punishment," and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rules of the Detention Act also explicitly prohibits using restraints for "punishment." Granted, detained defendants inevitably experience moments of emotional instability; however, can the MOJ truly convince itself with the claim that they are "emotionally unstable" and pose a "risk of escape or suicide" 365 days a year? Rather than making empty words, we would much rather see statistical figures on the duration that detained defendants in various detention centers wear leg irons. If the statistics reveal that the "prisoner conditions" in detention centers involve such "prolonged periods" of "instability," then the officials who should step down are either the directors of the detention centers or the Minister of Justice.

Second, if the application of restraints truly requires reporting to a court or prosecutor for approval, can the relevant data be made public for NGO auditing to prove that the MOJ has indeed implemented this? Does the High Prosecutors Office also conduct genuine audits "every month"? Furthermore, pursuant to Article 19, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rules of the Detention Act, approval must be renewed every "seven days" of restraint use for such use to continue. Can these "seven-day review" records also withstand scrutiny?

Finally, the MOJ emphasized that there is no situation where "all" defendants sentenced to death are fitted with restraints. How easy it is to negate a universal affirmative statement—as if the report by FIDH could be completely discredited merely because "one" death row inmate is not wearing restraints? According to "unwritten rules," leg irons typically become "daily necessities" the moment a death sentence is handed down in the first instance. Moreover, in recent years, as our courts have become increasingly rigorous in reviewing death penalty cases, the fact that defendants have worn leg irons for years has long been common knowledge. If the leg irons worn by death row inmates are still riveted shut with no keys available to open them, what about the seven-day reviews? What about the monthly reports? Who exactly is deceiving whom?

A nation governed by the rule of law does not reject punishment; what it rejects is cruelty. Even guilty defendants should not be subjected to treatment falling below the "United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners." Since the response is so full of confidence, perhaps the MOJ could give us "a" name!

※ Published in: Apple Daily / Forum