Sidelights | Approaching the Death Penalty: On the Constitutional Court's Oral Argument Concerning the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty

On April 23, 2024, the Constitutional Court held a public oral argument regarding the petition filed by Wang Hsin-fu and 37 other death row inmates challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty. The 37 death row inmates argued that the death penalty violates human dignity, including the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution, and that capital punishment or its related sentencing procedures violate the principle of proportionality and due process. The Central Taiwan Office of the JRF invited Attorney Ts'ai Meng-han to deliver a speech. This lecture introduced the current legal status of the death penalty in Taiwan and outlined the arguments presented by both sides during the Constitutional Court hearing.

The Constitutional Court has since issued its ruling on September 20, holding that the death penalty is constitutional in part but subject to restricted application. The Justices explicitly stated that while the right to life is undoubtedly important, it is not an absolute and inviolable right. For intentional homicide, based on the principle of culpability rooted in retributive justice, and in order to protect the legal interest of people's lives and stabilize social order, the existence of the death penalty remains necessary. However, considering that the death penalty is a supreme punishment depriving a defendant of life and is irreversible once executed following a judicial miscarriage, it must be applied prudently under strict standards. For instance, the death penalty should be restricted to the most severe crimes; a unanimous decision by collegiate panels across all court levels should be required; and capital punishment shall not be imposed on defendants who had mental disabilities or other cognitive impairments at the time of the offense and trial....

Attorney Ts'ai Meng-han expressed that his primary reason for opposing the death penalty lies in "what the death penalty means to the victims' families." Following the Taipei MRT random stabbing incident in Taiwan in 2014, there was a period when people were afraid to ride the MRT or other mass transit systems. Imagine if robbery and murder cases occurred within your community; even if the perpetrator has been arrested, would you still feel uneasy? Criminal law possesses a much stronger public character compared to civil law; we are all joint adherents and maintainers of social order. If one person violates this order, it results in an infringement upon the overall public order. From the perspective of criminal law, everyone is a victim.

For Attorney Ts'ai Meng-han, perhaps the only meaning of the existence of the death penalty is so-called "restorative justice," serving as a form of compensation for the victims' families. The families' trust in the judicial system is reflected in their expectation that the state will impose corresponding punishments on the offender. Yet, if a loophole appears within certain social mechanisms leading to tragedy, can the state resolve the problem simply through a "death penalty execution"? This seems to become a means for the state to evade its responsibility. American neuroscientist James Fallon once conducted related research, which confirmed a high probability of correlation between the causes of criminality and childhood abuse. The occurrence of crime is the culmination of life development—stemming perhaps from unpleasant childhood memories, life experiences during adolescence, or even a sudden eruption under overwhelming stress... Any trivial daily matter can become a criminal's motive to kill.

This is precisely the primary task the state should handle: examining the motives for crime at their source. Within this social system, have problems arisen in the family environment, the educational system, or social welfare? Instead of letting the people expect the state to act heroically to deprive a person of life while failing to consider whether there was an opportunity beforehand to prevent the occurrence of the crime and the infringement upon public interest—after all, once a criminal is executed, alongside their life, their upbringing and criminal motives also vanish together. Preventing or improving the occurrence of crime means caring for the social and psychological development of the people. It is hoped that the state can strengthen the retrospective analysis of the causes of crime, improve the overall social environment, build a more robust social safety net, and fundamentally resolve the problem of crime.