Press Release | "Beyond the Death Penalty, the Government Should Do More"—Judicial Reform Foundation Press Release on Constitutional Court Judgment No. 8 of 2024

Today, the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment on the constitutionality of the death penalty (Constitutional Court Judgment No. 8 of 2024), ruling that the death penalty is constitutional based on the grounds of achieving the deterrent function of criminal law and just retribution. However, the Constitutional Court ruled that enhanced procedural protections must be provided in cases where there is no defense counsel in the third instance, no mandatory defense during investigation, no unanimous decision by the court, or where the defendant is mentally disabled. Regarding the outcome of this Constitutional Court judgment, the Foundation issues the following statement:

The Foundation expresses its regret regarding the ruling rendered by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court's judgment, grounded in the requirements of international covenants to restrain state penal power when criminal conduct does not reach the most serious level, has once again affirmed the restriction that the death penalty may only be applied to "most serious crimes" as a means of criminal sanction. Meanwhile, regarding trial procedures, given that the death penalty is the most severe criminal sanction, the most rigorous procedures must be adopted to ensure that there is no doubt whatsoever regarding the criminal facts and due process.

However, among the 37 parties involved in this constitutional interpretation case, both Wang Hsin-fu and Chiou Ho-shun were victims of wrongful convictions stemming from questionable legal procedures (such as defendants or witnesses being subjected to torture, no defendant fingerprints found on the murder weapon, missing testimony audio tapes, etc.). The Foundation deeply regrets that the Constitutional Court failed to address this issue in the present judgment.

The Foundation believes that discussions concerning the abolition or retention of the death penalty will not disappear following this judgment; conversely, state agencies should no longer resort to executing prisoners to alleviate public anxiety over serious crimes, but must instead confront the root of the problem directly.

Taking this opportunity, the government should more comprehensively explore the causes of major crimes and strengthen the construction of the social safety net. Truly beginning to understand what a living human being has experienced before becoming a "monster" in the eyes of society, and genuinely confronting and discussing how to prevent such tragedies from recurring. We believe that the Ministry of Justice, as the competent authority for legal administration and criminal policy in our country, should present a detailed annual report to the public on the current status of public security and the prevention of major crimes (for example: establishing a database on major criminal cases, compiling statistics and cause analyses of serious crime occurrences, summarizing the progress and results of cases under trial, and briefly describing the status of cases under execution). Beyond reiterating the condemnation of and zero tolerance for serious crimes, more proactively, it should also research relevant risk factors and reduce the systemic factors giving rise to perpetrators through policy, or issue warnings regarding risk awareness to potential victims.

In this regard, we hope that the government can take more responsible and systematic proactive actions in the cause analysis, individual case tracking, crime prevention, as well as compensation and care for victims' families concerning major criminal cases.

---

Media Contact

Lü Cheng-yen, Attorney-at-Law, Director of the Department of Legal Policy, Judicial Reform Foundation
Phone: 02-2523-1178#37
Email: elvin@jrf.org.tw