Teacher Wang, Po-Chi was interviewed by United Daily News: If you ask for an interpretation of the constitution, you cannot be shot. Can judicial decisions on political issues “lose the bag” to ward off public complaints?
2024-04-23 08:00
United Daily News/Reporters WANG,HUNG-SHUN and LIN,MENG-CHIEH
The sexual assault and murderer WANG,KUO-HUA, who once mocked the judge as “courageless”, has written many times asking the Ministry of Justice when he will be given a “day to die” due to his long-term detention. Wang had no intention of petitioning for an interpretation of the constitution, but the Abolition of Death Alliance approached the Queen Mother and signed a letter of consent for petitioning for an interpretation of the constitution on his behalf, requesting the Ministry of Justice to retain someone under the gun. This caused a controversy involving forged documents, because the petition for an interpretation of the constitution had not been submitted without permission. The death row inmate authorized Wang to commit suicide on March 4, 2011. After investigation by the prosecutor, the forgery case was concluded in May 2011.
This case of forged documents by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty highlights the fact that the Ministry of Justice has formulated its own rules for the execution of the death penalty, which is equivalent to not executing anyone as long as they petition for an interpretation of the Constitution. Abolitionist groups and death row inmates continue to find various reasons to petition for an interpretation of the Constitution, creating a situation criticized by the Chinese people. The Ministry of Justice and the abolitionist groups are playing a double act, and Taiwan has essentially abolished the death penalty.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to impose death sentences is one problem, but the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to execute executions is another problem. The Ministry of Justice will not execute the death penalty due to the “execution of the death penalty rule”, including the application for extraordinary appeals, retrials, and constitutional interpretation procedures by the Supreme Court. The order cannot be approved until the end of the relief procedures, but the rule maker is the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Justice formulates rules to avoid execution regulations, and then stated that “rushed execution of the death penalty is an illegal execution.” This statement seems to override the jurisdiction of the trial and criticizes “the judge’s decision to impose the death penalty is arbitrary.”
Another strange phenomenon is that 80% to 90% of public opinion in Taiwan opposes the abolition of the death penalty, but a small number of groups that advocate the abolition of the death penalty have a disproportionate say. They have even established organizations with various names to create the illusion that “many people support the abolition of the death penalty.” Including the “friends of the court” listed in the Constitutional Court’s oral debate on the death penalty on April 23, when the list was opened, more than 90% were clear-cut advocates who had long advocated the abolition of the dead. The voices of the people who opposed the abolition of the dead were not only ignored, but also ignored at all. In the mind of the judge.
Can’t you be shot if you ask for an interpretation of the constitution? Death row inmates keep asking questions to survive
Under the rules of the game, “As long as someone petitions for the interpretation of the constitution, they cannot be executed.” Abolitionist groups and death row inmates continue to find various reasons to petition for the interpretation of the constitution. Even when answering questions from legislators in the hall of Congress, the Secretary-General of the Judicial Yuan gave a frank answer Legislators said, “This is the truth.” In order to avoid death, prisoners on death row have petitioned for an interpretation of the constitution.
WANG,WANG-HSIN-FU, a death row inmate accused of abetting the killing of two police officers, claimed that Article 159-3 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the police interview transcripts of witnesses who did not appear in court can be used as evidence. However, many key witnesses have been executed and cannot be questioned, claiming that the legal regulations explain. Judgment No. 12 of 2023 Xianbenzi held that the provision was for the purpose of discovering the truth, and that the out-of-court statements of witnesses who were not present in court were admitted as evidence, thus detracting from the defendant’s right to defense. This was an exceptional provision, and the provision was ruled to be constitutional.
The one that has attracted the most attention recently is the 2023 Constitution No. 14 “Criminal Proceedings Judge’s Recusal Case,” which concerns whether death row inmates have the opportunity to be retried. Thirty-five death row inmates, including Xiaokai Wang Hongwei, the builder who brutally killed his unrequited love partner for $176, advocated that the second instance be heard by the same judge after appeal to the Supreme Court. They questioned the key points of the Supreme Court’s implementation of the case division, commonly known as the “conjunction clause” and the Criminal Procedure Law. The provisions are unconstitutional, and we request an explanation and supplement the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 178. The Constitutional Court held that the “conjugal stipulation” did not violate the Constitution’s intention to protect the right to litigate. The cases were also randomly divided by computer before the conjugal order, and it ruled that it was constitutional.
In order to delay the execution, death row inmates and abolitionist groups tried their best to “find problems” and even applied for a presidential pardon. The death row inmates claim that the Supreme Administrative Court has determined that the President’s exercise of the power of pardon is not a legal dispute subject to judicial review, and that the President’s exercise of the power of pardon seriously ignores the right of those under death penalty to request pardon.
However, the Constitutional Court held that Article 40 of the Constitution stipulates that “the President shall exercise the power of amnesty, pardon, commutation and restoration of power in accordance with the law.” It can be seen that pardon is the prerogative of the President, and the Constitution does not give the people the basic right to request pardon. Although “a person who has been sentenced to death shall “The right to request pardon or commutation of sentence” is clearly stipulated in the Civil Service Covenant, but there is no way to say that pardon is a right guaranteed by the constitution, and the ruling is not accepted.
Death row inmates oppose capital punishment, saying it has nothing to do with reducing crime
This time the Constitutional Court chose the 23rd to discuss whether the death penalty is unconstitutional. The first issue in the debate is to debate what purposes the death penalty system pursues. If the death penalty deprives people of their constitutional rights (such as the right to life, etc.), is it allowed by our constitution?
A man, HUANG,LIN-KAI , strangled his ex-girlfriend named Wang to death and his daughter. Before killing the princess, he sexually assaulted her and was sentenced to death. He petitioned for an interpretation of the death penalty and brazenly said that if the purpose of the death penalty is to intimidate people from committing murder or to comfort them The victims were in pain, and “there is no evidence that the death penalty can achieve its purpose.”
HUANG,LIN-KAI’s petition stated that the legislative body and current practice cannot prove that the crime rate of countries with the death penalty is better than that of countries that have abolished the death penalty. There is no correlation between the death penalty and the reduction of crime rates. Huang also claimed that “the death penalty has the effect of diverting the focus,” preventing the public from focusing on and solving the root causes of crime, such as strengthening judicial resources or improving the social security system.
Regarding the victim’s family’s hope that the death penalty can achieve justice, HUANG,LIN-KAI believes that the death penalty is not the only way to express anger over a crime. He also said that if someone kills someone, the country does not need to execute the death penalty in cold blood and can choose to impose a long sentence.
The petitions for constitutional annulment of the 37 death row inmates were basically written by lawyers. The arguments were similar, but the claims were often bizarre and staggering. The White Rose Social Care Association believes that lawyers go to great lengths to help death row inmates escape death, even saying that they are “not human at all”. This is not only unacceptable to the public, but also harms the victim’s family for a second time, adding to the wound. Sprinkle with salt.
People discuss the death penalty but are called “legally illiterate”. Vigilante groups: The judiciary only protects the perpetrators
LIANG,YU-FANG, chairman of the White Rose Social Care Association, said that the law is used to protect the people, but people who do not understand the law will express their opinions on the death penalty, but they will be called “legally illiterate” by the arrogant judicial elite, who will suppress them with a bunch of laws. Kill everyone, or use “populism” to overgeneralize, as if the people do not pay attention to human rights and world trends, and are an inferior “lower class”.
HSU,NI-NI, the general secretary of Children Want to Grow Up with You, pointed out that a small number of legal elites have no regard for public opinion and insist on “anti-majority” to decide the laws that the general public must abide by. Whenever there are objections, they show the arrogance of legal professionals and regard the opponent as “legally illiterate”. She believes that the public should decide whether to use the death penalty, and holding a referendum is the easiest way.
HSU,NI-NI has no confidence in correctional institutions. The ratio of educators to prisoners is 1:380. How can she believe that prisoners can be effectively educated in prison? If death sentences and life imprisonment cannot be imposed in the future, correctional institutions cannot function, and serious murderers have the opportunity to return to society, what protection is there for people who have not made any mistakes?
HSU,NI-NI believes that “people have no human rights after death because they cannot speak.” The victims’ families have not received justice from the verdict of not imposing death penalty, but they do not even have the right to speak or express their opinions during the death penalty debate in the Constitutional Court. It is inevitable to be disappointed with the judiciary. Yes, the judiciary only protected the “perpetrator” in the end.
Is retributivism obsolete? Can the judiciary withstand the grievances of the people? Scholars analyze this
Wang, Po-Chi, An associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice of Ming Chuan University believes that “retributionism” is not outdated. Once a major criminal case occurs in a country that has abolished the death penalty, it will still arouse public support for the death penalty. For example, Hong Kong abolished the death penalty in 1993, but the case of TSAI,TIEN-FENG in February 2023 The dismemberment case aroused strong public demands for the reinstatement of the death penalty.
Lin Yushun, chairman of the Japanese Criminal Law Research Association in Taiwan, has a different view. Retributionalism comes from the Western classical criminal law “a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye.” Today, 70% of countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, which shows that the concept of retribution has gradually faded; Taiwan has By making the two conventions domestic laws, and Article 6, Paragraph 6, of the Public Administration Convention stating that “the abolition of death shall not be delayed or hindered,” our country will eventually have to face the issue of abolition.
Wang, Po-Chi pointed out that the Legislative Yuan had proposed a draft of “Suspended Death Penalty” to provide a buffer period for observation. If the victim is sentenced to one death penalty, the execution can be suspended after the application is reviewed. However, if more than two death sentences are pronounced, it means that the crime is serious. Applicable; if the victim is determined to die, the death penalty can also be executed humanely according to his wishes during the suspension of execution.
He pointed out that the “Suspended Execution of Death Penalty” draft was not passed in the end, but he agreed that major sentences should be more carefully distinguished by the severity of the crime, and the execution would be less controversial, such as life imprisonment with conditional parole, life imprisonment, and suspended execution. Death penalty, death penalty not applicable to suspended execution.
The preservation and abolition of the death penalty is a political issue. Scholars: throwing away judicial decisions is irresponsible and “throwing away the bag”
LIN,YU-SHUN said that most countries around the world use politics to determine whether the death penalty should be kept or not. It is up to leaders to decide, convince the people and the legislature, and communicate with the people through a complete system. If Taiwan wants to rely on the judiciary to decide whether to keep the death penalty, the country will not Responsible “packet loss”.
He believes that when the government legalized the two conventions, it should have imagined that there would be a day when the death penalty would be abolished. However, politics left the issue of abolishing death to the judiciary, and there were concerns about political interference in the judiciary. Moreover, “our judiciary can really block public complaints.” ?”