Is It Difficult to Live in a Society Without the Death Penalty?

In his epitaph for his parents, "Record of the Lung-kang Stream," the Song dynasty Neo-Confucian scholar Ou-yang Hsiu used the phrase, "Seeking to let them live yet unable to do so, then both the deceased and I have no regrets," to describe his father's cautiousness and internal struggle as a judge determining life and death. This has also become an exemplary standard for judges facing death penalty judgments through the ages. Yet to this day, there is no shortage of judges challenging traditional retributive concepts in individual case judgments. Early this year, a judge surnamed Chang at the Miaoli District Court sentenced a defendant who committed robbery-homicide and aggravated sexual assault to life imprisonment based on his opposition to the death penalty. Although the sentence remained within the statutory sentencing range, because it failed to produce a death penalty judgment meeting "general societal expectations" and "judicial conventions," it sparked considerable controversy at the time, particularly a backlash from the victim's family. However, the question truly worthy of our reflection is: Is it difficult to live in a society without the death penalty?

On the eve of International Human Rights Day, various human rights events were launched successively, including the lively "Human Rights Together Expo" held by the government in the plaza before the Presidential Office. However, among many human rights issues, the debate over the abolition or retention of the death penalty is often marginalized, or reduced to a cliché that receives little public attention except in special cases. After all, in the minds of the general public, the issue of capital punishment concerns only the human rights of a "tiny minority," or, based on traditional retributive concepts, the existence of the death penalty is taken as self-evident. Yet once a person's right to life is deprived, all other forms of human rights protection lose their foundation! The President, the President of the Judicial Yuan, and the Minister of Justice have all declared that abolishing the death penalty is a governmental policy objective, and the draft "Human Rights Act" proposed by the government will also stipulate its gradual abolition. Recognizing that the abolition of the death penalty is a fundamental human rights issue, and in order to assist and supervise the government in abolishing capital punishment, the Judicial Reform Foundation recently joined forces with other civil society organizations to establish the "Alliance to Promote Alternatives to the Death Penalty."

The most powerful argument in favor of retaining the death penalty is often to provide an "account" to the victim's family, but we oppose the traditional retributive mindset of simply depriving the offender of life as compensation to the victim's family. After all, what victims' families truly need is a crime victim protection system based on a social safety net, providing reliable physical and psychological care, rather than a passive notion of "a life for a life." The practical operation of the current Crime Victim Protection Act overly emphasizes passive and one-time financial compensation, which is clearly insufficient. This is certainly an issue that proponents of the alternative-to-death-penalty movement and the government should address.

The reason we chose "Alternatives to the Death Penalty" rather than simply "Abolition of the Death Penalty" as the Alliance's guiding principle is that we should not merely pursue the passive abolition of capital punishment, but rather seek to replace it with a more rational criminal policy. In fact, previous public opinion polls show that whenever it is mentioned that appropriate measures are in place to replace the death penalty, more than half of the public expresses support for its abolition. This demonstrates that the direction the Alliance is striving to promote is correct. Furthermore, the absolute protection of the right to life should by no means be the "patent" of Western culture. For instance, the fact that Hong Kong continues to uphold the abolition of the death penalty after the implementation of "One Country, Two Systems" in 1997 is a clear proof!

Here, we sincerely hope that through the promotion of alternatives to the death penalty, the value and absolute protection of the right to life can be affirmed. After all, living in a society without the death penalty is by no means self-evident; rather, it is a process of forming and maintaining fundamental values, and an embodiment of practical reason. If a social consensus respecting the value of life can thus be formed, this will truly be the indispensable foundation for a nation built upon human rights.