Throat-Slitting Child Murder Case and the Debate on Death Penalty Sentencing

Recently, a throat-slitting child murder case occurred. According to news reports, after the suspect was apprehended the day before yesterday, remarks surfaced claiming that "even if one or two people are killed in Taiwan now, it won't lead to a death penalty sentence," causing an uproar in public opinion and shocking society. Coincidentally, yesterday the Supreme Court once again opened oral argument hearing sessions, and the topic happened to be the sentencing debate on the death penalty.

Comparing the two, the suspect took an innocent and precious child's life with a reason that is absurd and a process that is hasty. The child was young and innocent, had no prior acquaintance with the suspect, and bore no grudge or enmity against him. We cannot understand how the suspect could bring himself to deliver the fatal blow. Conversely, facing someone who has committed such a horrifying act, the Supreme Court is refining the sentencing and self-restricting the judges' discretionary power in sentencing through heavy procedures; the process is so cautious that it creates an extreme contrast.

Major Legal Controversies Should All Involve Court Hearings

Supreme Court judges have always been unfathomable, and the hearing the day before yesterday was merely the second one in 15 years. Whether the Supreme Court's action stems from its determination to improve its institutional functions, results from the grassroots judges' calls for reform, or arises from the pressure of the Legislative Yuan deeming it derelict in holding hearings and freezing part of its budget, the Supreme Court has held hearings twice this year and finally made a breakthrough, which should be affirmed.

Granted, just as the Supreme Court emphasizes, out of respect for the right to life, cases where capital punishment may be imposed will henceforth be subject to oral arguments; however, this should not be restricted to these cases alone. Death penalty cases account for less than 0.1% of the Supreme Court's caseload each year; other cases involving major legal controversies should be handled correspondingly. Oral arguments only help and never harm the Supreme Court. By listening to various opinions and even inviting expert witnesses to the court to state legal recommendations, it contributes greatly to the refinement and enrichment of our country's laws. This is precisely the primary reason why the Supreme Court should hold more oral argument sessions.

Sentencing Standards Should Be Objective and Clear

The reason why the individual cases brought to hearings involve major legal controversies is that, aside from adhering to the principle of "seeking life when there is no other way" regarding the imposition of the death penalty, a more fundamental problem is: sentencing itself is not a simple task. Otherwise, the state would hardly need judges; engineers could simply design a comprehensive program and let a computer calculate the prevailing "going rate" at the time.

There are numerous factors to consider during sentencing. Article 57 of the Criminal Code only lists 10 abstract grounds of varying degrees. Likewise, based on respect for the right to life, the number of people killed will naturally be an important sentencing factor, but it can by no means be the only factor. In fact, over one-third of the death row inmates whose sentences have been finalized killed one person, yet they were still sentenced to death due to other factors. The perpetrator's own subjective thoughts cannot dictate the judge's weighing of factors, which is precisely the intention behind the Supreme Court's effort to clarify sentencing factors as much as possible. On one hand, it seeks to propose sentencing standards compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; on the other hand, it aims to reduce the lack of procedure, investigation, and debate in judges' practical adjudications. The sentencing discourse in judgments has almost become a form of arbitrary prose rather than an objective legal judgment.

When compared to how a perpetrator takes a human life in a manner that is often so "inexplicable, hasty, and nonchalant," the layers of procedural safeguards the court provides for sentencing inevitably give rise to a sense of imbalance between the gravity of the crime and the leniency of the process. The Supreme Court stated that this time the controversy over the abolition or retention of the death penalty would not be discussed, yet due process of law cannot be ignored. Unless we regress to a pre-modern judiciary that values only substance while discarding procedure, the heavier the sentence, the more meticulous the sentencing procedure must naturally be. Only by first meeting the requirements of due process of law can we then discuss whether to impose the death penalty, rather than acting in an inexplicable, hasty, and nonchalant manner. Only in this way can both the living and the deceased truly be left without regret.

 
(This article was published in the Apple Forum on December 5, 2012, with minor textual adjustments by the editors of Apple Daily. This is the complete and unabridged text, also compiled in the Judicial Reform Magazine, Issue No. 93, published on December 31, 2012)